******************************************************** 
                      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.

*****************************************************************



                        STATEMENT OF
                 CHAIRMAN MICHAEL K. POWELL

Re:  Complaints Against Various Broadcast Licensees 
Regarding Their Airing of the 
     ``Golden Globe Awards'' Program

     Today, we overturn the Enforcement Bureau's October 
2003 decision and find that the use of the ``F-word'' during 
last year's broadcast of the Golden Globes violates the 
federal statute.  This sends a signal to the industry that 
the gratuitous use of such vulgar language on broadcast 
television will not be tolerated.

     For the first time, the Commission has applied the 
profanity section of the statute for the broadcast of this 
highly offensive word, an application I fully support.  The 
Commission has an important obligation to punish those who 
violate our law.  In administering our authority, the 
Commission must afford parties fair warning and due process 
and not let our zeal trample these fundamental protections.  
Given that today's decision clearly departs from past 
precedent in important ways, I could not support a fine 
retroactively against the parties.  Prospectively, parties 
are on notice that they could now face significant penalties 
for similar violations.

     Going forward, as instructed by the Supreme Court, we 
must use our enforcement tools cautiously.  As I have said 
since becoming a Commissioner, government action in this 
area can have a potential chilling effect on free speech.  
We guard against this by ruling when a clear line has been 
crossed and the government has no choice but to act.

     We will continue to respect the delicate balance of 
protecting the interests of the First Amendment with the 
need to protect our children.