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.
*****************************************************************
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN
Re: Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc., Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
The Commission has a duty to enforce statutory and
regulatory provisions restricting broadcast indecency. The
material broadcast by these four Clear Channel radio
stations is undeniably graphic and explicit in its sexual
content and clearly intended to shock listeners. Clear
Channel and, indeed, this particular ``Bubba the Love
Sponge'' program have been the subject of repeated
Commission indecency actions in the past. Given the
explicit nature of the broadcast material and the history of
prior offenses, this is the type of serious repeated
behavior that I believe would warrant initiation of license
revocation hearings.
In fairness, however, this material was broadcast in
2001. The Commission clarified in an April 2003 order that
it was broadening its range of enforcement approaches and
tools to combat indecency on our nation's public airwaves.
For this reason, I approve of today's Order as legally
appropriate. The egregious nature of the material clearly
warrants the statutory maximum $27,500 fine per violation.
While the Commission at all times has the authority to
initiate license revocation hearings or sanction for
multiple indecent utterances in a given program segment, it
can be argued that the Commission was not employing these
approaches at the time this material was broadcast.
Nonetheless, as we made clear last year, broadcasters are
now aware that the Commission will not hesitate to use its
full range of enforcement sanctions for indecent material
broadcast after April 2003.
I also acknowledge the importance of broadcasters
adhering to the public inspection file rules. Documents
pertaining to an FCC investigation are clearly within the
scope of the information that must be maintained in a manner
accessible to the listening public. In this case, each of
the stations inexplicably failed to include complaints
related to the airing of this material in their public
files.
A broadcast license is a public privilege. In return,
broadcasters have a responsibility to serve the public.
This public interest responsibility clearly encompasses
protecting children from indecency on the airwaves and
facilitating public access to documentation through which
the station can remain accountable to its local community
and listening public. These stations exhibited a blatant
disregard for both.