Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
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
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS
Re: Infinity Broadcasting Operations Inc., licensee of
WKRK-FM, Detroit Michigan, Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture
In this case, WKRK-FM in Detroit aired some of the most
vulgar and disgusting indecency that I have had the
misfortune to examine since I joined the Commission. The
station presented graphic descriptions of violent sexual
acts against women as entertainment at a time when children
likely composed a significant portion of the audience. The
extreme nature of this broadcast - among the worst we have
faced in the Commission's history - and the fact that it was
broadcast in the middle of the day, gives the FCC the
responsibility to take serious action. I dissent from the
majority's decision because I believe that a financial slap
on the wrist does not adequately reflect the seriousness of
the station's actions. To fulfill our duty under the law,
we should initiate a hearing to determine whether the WKRK-
FM license should be revoked.
I am deeply disappointed that the majority proposes a
mere $27,500 fine against this station. Such a fine will
easily be absorbed by the station as a ``cost of doing
business.'' While I am encouraged that the Commission has
at least, and at last, found such programming to be
indecent, I am discouraged that it does so little about it.
Would anyone who reads the transcript of this program
argue that the United States should subsidize such material
by giving WKRK-FM free spectrum through their broadcast
license? Can anyone read the indecency law that Congress
has given us and conclude that any station could broadcast
such material on the public's airwaves consistent with the
law? The majority admits that WKRK-FM appears to have
violated egregiously and extensively the statutory ban on
the broadcast of indecent material. The majority presumably
recognizes the seriousness of the offense. And,
importantly, this Commission has agreed for the first time
that it may revoke the license of a station owner that
broadcasts indecent material. But the Commission does not
take this step.
Our tepid action today will not dissuade these types of
broadcasts in the future. The message to licensees is
clear: Even egregious violations will not result in
revocation of a license. The majority does warn Infinity
that another similar action could result in a revocation
hearing, but it fails to mention that this is not the first
action against a station owned by Infinity. Infinity
stations were fined $1.7 million by a previous Commission in
1995 to settle a series of indecency cases. As part of that
settlement, Infinity agreed to take steps to prevent further
broadcast of indecent material. But more complaints
involving other broadcasts followed. Last August, for
example, another Infinity station aired the ``Opie &
Anthony'' program allegedly involving sex acts performed in
or near St. Patrick's Cathedral. That investigation is
still pending without action by the Commission.
The majority may say that this is the largest fine we
are allowed to impose under our guidelines. But fines are
not the only tool Congress gave us to enforce the law. The
Commission would be more credible by moving immediately to a
hearing to determine whether the station's license should be
revoked. We would be well within our statutory authority to
do this under Section 312(a)(6) of the Communications Act,
which specifically provides such a remedy.
I wonder when this Commission will finally take a firm
stand against broadcast's ``race to the bottom'' as the
level of discourse on the public's airwaves gets
progressively coarser and more violent. The time has come
for this Commission to send a message that it is serious
about enforcing its indecency rules. Our enforcement
actions should convince broadcasters that they cannot ignore
their responsibility to serve the public interest and to
protect children. The FCC's actions today fail to do so.