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.
*****************************************************************
STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS,
APPROVING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART
Re: Complaints by Parents Television Council against
Various Broadcast Licensees Regarding Their Airing of
Allegedly Indecent Material
We continue to hear from citizens who are concerned
about sexually explicit and profane programming on the
airwaves and the potentially detrimental effects of this
programming on our children. As an initial matter, I would
note that this Commission has a solemn obligation to respond
to consumer complaints. These complaints are increasing
exponentially from a few hundred only a couple of years ago
to over 1 million in 2004. And in the last few years,
complaints about television broadcasts have equaled or
exceeded those about radio broadcasts. Yet, although the
Commission recently has begun to take action against
indecency on television, some citizens remain concerned that
the FCC summarily dismisses their complaints. At the same
time, some broadcasters contend that the Commission has not
been adequately clear about how it determines whether a
broadcast is indecent. Today's rather cursory decisions do
little to address any of these concerns.
In these two Orders, the Commission combines 36
unrelated complaints with no apparent rhyme or reason other
than that they concern television broadcasts. The
Commission then denies these complaints with hardly any
analysis of each individual broadcast, relying instead on
generalized pronouncements that none of these broadcasts
violates the statutory prohibition against indecency on the
airwaves. I believe that some of these broadcasts present a
much closer call. Exemplary of the complaints that should
not have been summarily denied is one concerning The Diary
of Ellen Rimbauer, which I believe may very well violate the
statutory prohibition against indecency.
Although it may never be possible to provide 100
percent certainty because we must always take into account
the specific context, developing guidance and establishing
precedents are critically important Commission
responsibilities. We serve neither concerned consumers nor
the broadcast industry with the approach adopted in today's
item.