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.


                    SEPARATE STATEMENT OF 

Re: Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc., Licensee of 
Stations WPLA(FM), Callahan, Florida, and WCKT(FM), Port 
Charlotte, Florida (Formerly Station WRLR(FM)); Citicasters 
Licenses, L.P., Licensee of Station WXTB(FM), Clearwater, 
Florida; Capstar TX Limited Partnership, Licensee of Station 
WRLX(FM), West Palm Beach, Florida, Notice of Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture

     In this case, four Clear Channel stations aired on 
several occasions graphic and explicit sexual content as 
entertainment.  The extreme nature of these broadcasts and 
the fact that the show at issue has been the subject of 
repeated indecency actions gives the FCC the obligation to 
take serious action.  Instead, the majority proposes a mere 
$27,500 fine for each incident.  Such a fine will be easily 
absorbed as a ``cost of doing business'' and fails to send a 
message that the Commission is serious about enforcing the 
nation's indecency laws.  ``Cost of doing business fines'' 
are never going to stop the media's slide to the bottom.

     To fulfill our duty under the law, I believe the 
Commission should have designated these cases for a hearing 
on the revocation of these stations' licenses, as provided 
for by Section 312(a)(6) of the Communications Act.  I am 
discouraged that my colleagues would not join me in taking a 
firm stand against indecency on the airwaves.  

     If the Commission can't bring itself to go to a 
revocation hearing, at least the Commission should have used 
its current statutory authority to impose a higher and 
meaningful fine.  The Commission could have proposed a fine 
for each separate ``utterance'' that was indecent, rather 
than one fine for each lengthy segment.  As Commissioner 
Martin points out, such an approach would have led to a 
significantly higher fine.  

     Here, four Clear Channel stations ran several segments 
of the ``Bubba the Love Sponge'' show which contained 
graphic and explicit sexual content.  The majority admits 
that each of these stations appears to have egregiously and 
extensively violated the statutory ban on broadcast of 
indecent material numerous times.  But then the majority 
inexplicably determines that the appropriate recourse for 
this filth is a $27,500 fine for each violation.  

     The majority states that, in light of Clear Channel's 
history of violations of the indecency rules, other serious 
multiple violations ``may well lead to license revocation 
proceedings.''  The majority fails to acknowledge that not 
just Clear Channel, but the ``Bubba the Love Sponge'' show, 
has been the subject of at least three previous fines for 
violating our nation's indecency laws.  This is not even 
``three strikes and you are out'' enforcement.  How many 
strikes are we going to give them?

     This case may well lead broadcasters to believe that 
this Commission will never use the enforcement authority it 
currently has available to it.  The message to licensees is 
clear.  Even egregious repeated violations will not result 
in revocation of a license.  Rather, they will result only 
in a financial penalty that is merely a cost of doing 
     The time has come for this Commission to take a firm 
stand against the ``race to the bottom'' as the level of 
discourse on the public's airwaves gets progressively 
coarser and more violent.  Our enforcement actions should 
convince broadcasters that they cannot ignore their 
responsibility to serve the public interest and to protect 
children.  The FCC's action today fails to do so.