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.


                                  STATEMENT OF

                       Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein

                     Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part

   Re: Complaints Regarding Various Television Broadcasts Between February 2,
   2002 and March 8, 2005, Notices of Apparent Liability and Memorandum
   Opinion and Order

   I have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and to carry out the laws
   adopted by Congress. Trying to find a balance between these obligations
   has been challenging in many of the indecency cases that I have decided. I
   believe it is our duty to regulate the broadcast of indecent material to
   the fullest extent permissible by the Constitution because safeguarding
   the well-being of our children is a compelling national interest. I
   therefore have supported efforts to step up our enforcement of indecency
   laws since I joined the Commission.

   The Commission's authority to regulate indecency over the public airwaves
   was narrowly upheld by the Supreme Court with the admonition that we
   should exercise that authority with the utmost restraint, lest we inhibit
   constitutional rights and transgress constitutional limitations on
   government regulation of protected speech. Given the Court's guidance in
   Pacifica, the Commission has repeatedly stated that we would judiciously
   walk a "tightrope" in exercising our regulatory authority. Hence, within
   this legal context, a rational and principled "restrained enforcement
   policy" is not a matter of mere regulatory convenience. It is a
   constitutional requirement.

   Accordingly, I concur in part and dissent in part with today's decision
   because, while in some ways the decision does not go far enough, in other
   ways it goes too far. Significantly, it abruptly departs from our
   precedents by adopting a new, weaker enforcement mechanism that
   arbitrarily fails to assess fines against broadcasters who have aired
   indecent material. Additionally, while today's decision appropriately
   identifies violations of our indecency laws, not every instance determined
   to be indecent meets that standard.

   We have previously sought to identify all broadcasters who have aired
   indecent material and hold them accountable. In this Order, however, the
   Commission inexplicably fines only the licensee whose broadcast of
   indecent material was the subject of a viewer's complaint, even though we
   know millions of other Americans were exposed to the offending broadcast.
   I cannot find anywhere in the law that Congress told us to apply indecency
   regulations only to those stations against which a complaint was
   specifically lodged. The law requires us to prohibit the broadcast of
   indecent material, period. This means that we must enforce the law
   anywhere we determine it has been violated. It is willful blindness to
   decide, with respect to network broadcasts we know aired nationwide, that
   we will only enforce the law against the local station that happens to be
   the target of viewer complaints. How can we impose a fine solely on
   certain local broadcasters, despite having repeatedly said that the
   Commission applies a national indecency standard - not a local one?

   The failure to enforce the rules against some stations but not others is
   not what the courts had in mind when they counseled restraint. In fact,
   the Supreme Court's decision in Pacifica was based on the uniquely
   pervasive characteristics of broadcast media. It is patently arbitrary to
   hold some stations but not others accountable for the same broadcast. We
   recognized this just two years ago in Married By America. The Commission
   simply inquired who aired the indecent broadcast and fined all of those
   stations that did so.

   In the Super Bowl XXXVIII Halftime Show decision, we held only those
   stations owned and operated by the CBS network responsible, under the
   theory that the affiliates did not expect the incident and it was
   primarily the network's fault. I dissented in part to that case because I
   believed we needed to apply the same sanction to every station that aired
   the offending material. I raise similar concerns today, in the context of
   the instant Order.

   The Commission is constitutionally obligated to decide broadcast indecency
   and profanity cases based on the "contemporary community standard," which
   is "that of the average broadcast viewer or listener." The Commission has
   explained the "contemporary community standard," as follows:

   We rely on our collective experience and knowledge, developed through
   constant interaction with lawmakers, courts, broadcasters, public interest
   groups and ordinary citizens, to keep abreast of contemporary community
   standards for the broadcast medium.

   I am concerned that today's Order overreaches with its expansion of the
   scope of indecency and profanity law, without first doing what is
   necessary to determine the appropriate contemporary community standard.

   The Order builds on one of the most difficult cases we have ever decided,
   Golden Globe Awards, and stretches it beyond the limits of our precedents
   and constitutional authority. The precedent set in that case has been
   contested by numerous broadcasters, constitutional scholars and public
   interest groups who have asked us to revisit and clarify our reasoning and
   decision. Rather than reexamining that case, the majority uses the
   decision as a springboard to add new words to the pantheon of those deemed
   to be inherently sexual or excretory, and consequently indecent and
   profane, irrespective of their common meaning or of a fleeting and
   isolated use. By failing to address the many serious concerns raised in
   the reconsideration petitions filed in the Golden Globe Awards case,
   before prohibiting the use of additional words, the Commission falls short
   of meeting the constitutional standard and walking the tightrope of a
   restrained enforcement policy.

   This approach endangers the very authority we so delicately retain to
   enforce broadcast decency rules. If the Commission in its zeal oversteps
   and finds our authority circumscribed by the courts, we may forever lose
   the ability to protect children from the airing of indecent material,
   barring an unlikely constitutional amendment setting limitations on the
   First Amendment freedoms.

   The perilous course taken today is evident in the approach to the
   acclaimed Martin Scorsese documentary, "The Blues: Godfathers and Sons."
   It is clear from a common sense viewing of the program that coarse
   language is a part of the culture of the individuals being portrayed. To
   accurately reflect their viewpoint and emotions about blues music requires
   airing of certain material that, if prohibited, would undercut the ability
   of the filmmaker to convey the reality of the subject of the documentary.
   This contextual reasoning is consistent with our decisions in Saving
   Private Ryan and Schindler's List.

   The Commission has repeatedly reaffirmed, and the courts have consistently
   underscored, the importance of content and context. The majority's
   decision today dangerously departs from those precedents. It is certain to
   strike fear in the hearts of news and documentary makers, and broadcasters
   that air them, which could chill the future expression of constitutionally
   protected speech.

   We should be mindful of Justice Harlan's observation in Cohen v.
   California. Writing for the Court,  he observed:

   [W]ords are often chosen as much for their emotive as their cognitive
   force. We cannot sanction the view that the Constitution, while solicitous
   of the cognitive content of individual speech, has little or no regard for
   that emotive function which, practically speaking, may often be the more
   important element of the overall message sought to be communicated.

   Given all of these considerations, I find that today's decision, while
   reaching some appropriate conclusions both in identifying indecent
   material and in dismissing complaints, is in some ways dangerously off the
   mark. I cannot agree that it offers a coherent, principled long-term
   framework that is rooted in common sense. In fact, it may put at risk the
   very authority to protect children that it exercises so vigorously.

   U.S. Const., amend. I.

   Congress has specifically forbidden the broadcast of obscene, indecent or
   profane language. 18 U.S.C. S 1464. It has also forbidden censorship. 47
   U.S.C. S 326.

   See, e.g., N.Y. v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756-57 (1982).

   See FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 750 (1978) (emphasizing the
   "narrowness" of the Court's holding); Action for Children's Television v.
   FCC, 852 F.2d 1332, 1344 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ("ACT I") ("Broadcast material
   that is indecent but not obscene is protected by the [F]irst

   See Brief for Petitioner, FCC, 1978 WL 206838 at *9.

   ACT I, supra note 4, at 1344 ("[T]he FCC may regulate [indecent] material
   only with due respect for the high value our Constitution places on
   freedom and choice in what the people say and hear."); Id. at 1340 n.14
   ("[T]he potentially chilling effect of the FCC's generic definition of
   indecency will be tempered by the Commission's restrained enforcement
   policy."). See also Complaints Regarding Various Television Broadcasts
   Between February 2, 2002 and March 8, 2005, Notices of Apparent Liability
   and Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 06-17 at note 11 (rel. March 15,

   See, e.g., In re Sagittarius Broadcasting Corporation, Memorandum Opinion
   and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 6873, 6876 (1992) (subsequent history omitted).

   See Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. at 748-49 (recognizing the "uniquely
   pervasive presence" of broadcast media "in the lives of all Americans").
   In today's Order, paragraph 10, the Commission relies upon the same

   See Complaints Against Various Licensees Regarding Their Broadcast of the
   Fox Television Network Program "Married by America" on April 7, 2003,
   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 20191, 20196
   (2004) (proposing a $7,000 forfeiture against each Fox Station and Fox
   Affiliate station); reconsideration pending. See also Clear Channel Broad.
   Licenses, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd 6773, 6779 (2004) (proposing a $495,000 fine
   based on a "per utterance" calculation, and directing an investigation
   into stations owned by other licensees that broadcast the indecent
   program). In the instant Omnibus Order, however, the Commission
   inexplicably fines only the licensee whose broadcast of indecent material
   was actually the subject of a viewer's complaint to the Commission. Id. at
   P  71.

   See Complaints Against Various Television Licensees Concerning Their
   February 1, 2004, Broadcast of the Super Bowl XXXVIII Halftime Show,
   Notice of Apparent Liability, 19 FCC Rcd 19230 (2004).

   In re Infinity Radio License, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC
   Rcd 5022, 5026 (2004).

   In re Complaints Against Broadcast Licensees Regarding Their Airing of the
   "Golden Globe Awards" Program, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd
   4975 (2004); petitions for stay and reconsideration pending.

   In the Matter of Complaints Against Various Television Licensees Regarding
   Their Broadcast on November 11, 2004, of the ABC Television Network's
   Presentation of the Film,  "Saving Private Ryan,"  Memorandum Opinion and
   Order, 20 FCC Rcd 4507, 4513 (2005) ("Deleting all [indecent] language or
   inserting milder language or bleeping sounds into the film would have
   altered the nature of the artistic work and diminished the power, realism
   and immediacy of the film experience for viewers"); See also Peter
   Branton, Letter by Direction of the Commission, 6 FCC Rcd 610 (1991)
   (concluding that repeated use of the f-word in a recorded news interview
   program not indecent in context).

   In the Matter of WPBN/WTOM License Subsidiary, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd 1838

   403 U.S. 15 (1971).

   Id. at 26 ("We cannot indulge the facile assumption that one can forbid
   particular words without also running a substantial risk of suppressing
   ideas in the process").