**DISSENTING STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

*Re: Infinity Broadcasting Operations Inc., licensee of WKRK-FM, Detroit
Michigan, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture*

In this case, WKRK-FM in Detroit aired some of the most vulgar and
disgusting indecency that I have had the misfortune to examine since I
joined the Commission. The station presented graphic descriptions of
violent sexual acts against women as entertainment at a time when
children likely composed a significant portion of the audience. The
extreme nature of this broadcast -- among the worst we have faced in the
Commission's history -- and the fact that it was broadcast in the middle
of the day, gives the FCC the responsibility to take serious action. I
dissent from the majority's decision because I believe that a financial
slap on the wrist does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the
station's actions. To fulfill our duty under the law, we should initiate
a hearing to determine whether the WKRK-FM license should be revoked.

I am deeply disappointed that the majority proposes a mere \$27,500 fine
against this station. Such a fine will easily be absorbed by the station
as a "cost of doing business." While I am encouraged that the Commission
has at least, and at last, found such programming to be indecent, I am
discouraged that it does so little about it.

Would anyone who reads the transcript of this program argue that the
United States should subsidize such material by giving WKRK-FM free
spectrum through their broadcast license? Can anyone read the indecency
law that Congress has given us and conclude that any station could
broadcast such material on the public's airwaves consistent with the
law? The majority admits that WKRK-FM appears to have violated
egregiously and extensively the statutory ban on the broadcast of
indecent material. The majority presumably recognizes the seriousness of
the offense. And, importantly, this Commission has agreed for the first
time that it may revoke the license of a station owner that broadcasts
indecent material. But the Commission does not take this step.

Our tepid action today will not dissuade these types of broadcasts in
the future. The message to licensees is clear: Even egregious violations
will not result in revocation of a license. The majority does warn
Infinity that another similar action could result in a revocation
hearing, but it fails to mention that this is not the first action
against a station owned by Infinity. Infinity stations were fined \$1.7
million by a previous Commission in 1995 to settle a series of indecency
cases. As part of that settlement, Infinity agreed to take steps to
prevent further broadcast of indecent material. But more complaints
involving other broadcasts followed. Last August, for example, another
Infinity station aired the "Opie & Anthony" program allegedly involving
sex acts performed in or near St. Patrick's Cathedral. That
investigation is still pending without action by the Commission.

The majority may say that this is the largest fine we are allowed to
impose under our guidelines. But fines are not the only tool Congress
gave us to enforce the law. The Commission would be more credible by
moving immediately to a hearing to determine whether the station's
license should be revoked. We would be well within our statutory
authority to do this under Section 312(a)(6) of the Communications Act,
which specifically provides such a remedy.

I wonder when this Commission will finally take a firm stand against
broadcast's "race to the bottom" as the level of discourse on the
public's airwaves gets progressively coarser and more violent. The time
has come for this Commission to send a message that it is serious about
enforcing its indecency rules. Our enforcement actions should convince
broadcasters that they cannot ignore their responsibility to serve the
public interest and to protect children. The FCC's actions today fail to
do so.