*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 36784*
 STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  JONATHAN  S.  ADELSTEIN 
 Re:  Complaints  Against  Various  Broadcast  Licensees  Regarding  Their  Airing  of  the  Golden  Globe  Awards  Program;  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order 


 The  Commission  today  takes  a  major  step  in  safeguarding  the  well-  being  of  our  nations  children.  By  reversing  the  Bureau  order,  we  deliver  a  loud  and  clear  decree  that  gratuitous 
 broadcasts  of  the  F-  word  will  not  be  tolerated  on  our  airwaves.  Many  studies  show  that  the  use  of  the  F-  word  and  other  vulgarities  is  becoming  more  prevalent  in  our  society,  and  in  our  media. 
 Broadcasters  have  a  responsibility  to  serve  the  public  interest,  and  fail  to  meet  it  if  they  contribute  to  this  trend. 


 By  todays  action,  the  Commission  steps  up  to  its  responsibility  to  enforce  statutory  and  regulatory  provisions  restricting  broadcast  indecency  and  profanity.  Recognizing  that  the  First 
 Amendment  requires  a  delicate  balance,  the  Supreme  Court  has  held  that  the  Commission  can  constitutionally  regulate  indecent  broadcasts  in  the  interests  of  protecting  children  from 
 vulgarities  broadcast  over  public  airwaves  to  the  public  at  large.  The  same  statute  also  proscribes  broadcast  profanity,  and  I  am  pleased  that  we  apply  a  profanity  definition  endorsed  by  the  courts 
 to  give  meaning  to  our  statutory  directive.  1  While  we  have  historically  interpreted  profane  to  mean  blasphemy,  I  support  our  application  of  the  statute  to  the  F-  word,  a  highly  offensive  and 
 commonly  understood  profanity. 
 I  agree  with  the  courts  that  what  is  indecent  is  largely  a  function  of  context,  and  cannot  adequately  be  judged  in  an  abstract,  or  per-  se,  manner.  In  large  part,  the  character  of  an  act  is 
 informed  by  the  circumstances  in  which  it  is  done.  Yet,  even  for  live  award  shows,  where  technology  allows  for  the  removal  of  isolated  words,  the  gratuitous  broadcast  of  the  F-  word  is  not 
 justified.  The  tens  of  thousands  of  emails,  calls  and  letters  that  poured  in  to  the  Commission  opposing  this  broadcast  are  telling  of  the  sexual  connotation  and  offensiveness  of  that  word.  And 
 its  offensiveness  does  not  depend  on  whether  it  is  used  as  an  adjective,  adverb,  verb  or  gerund. 
 Todays  action  does  not  fail  to  appreciate  the  cultural  creativity  and  pluralism  of  our  society.  There  was  no  suggestion  that  the  use  of  the  F-  word  in  this  case  was  traced  to  any 
 literary,  artistic,  political  or  scientific  value.  Its  use  here  was  both  gratuitous  and  easily  avoidable. 


 There  should  be  no  doubt,  my  strong  preference  here  would  have  been  to  assess  a  fine  against  the  licensees  in  this  case.  Despite  this  preference,  as  a  legal  matter,  todays  action  can  be 
 said  to  represent  a  departure  from  a  previous  line  of  cases  issued  before  I  joined  the  Commission.  Those  cases  routinely  failed  to  take  action  against  isolated  uses  of  the  F-  word,  an  approach  that 
 was  endorsed  in  our  April  2001  Policy  Statement.  2  Our  action  today  also  represents  a  fresh,  new 
 1  See  Tallman  v.  United  States,  465  F.  2d  282,  286  (7  th  Cir.  1972). 


 2  See,  e.  g.,  Pacifica  Foundation,  Inc.,  2  FCC  Rcd  2698,  2699  (1987);  Infinity  Broadcasting 
 Corporation  of  Pennsylvania,  Inc.,  2  FCC  Rcd  2705  (1987);  Industry  Guidance  on  the  Commissions  Case  Law  Interpreting  18  U.  S.  C.    1464  and  Enforcement  Policies  Regarding  Broadcast  Indecency,  16  FCC  Rcd 


 7999  (2001)  (2001  Policy  Statement)  and  cases  cited  in  note  32  of  this  decision.  Included  in  these  examples  is  a  broadcast  of  Cher  saying  the  F-  word  on  the  2002  Billboard  Awards  Ceremony  which  was  found  not 
 indecent. 
1
 approach  to  enforcing  our  statutory  responsibility  with  respect  to  profane  broadcasts.  3  Regardless  of  my  personal  view,  in  such  instances,  licensees  should  have  fair  notice  that  the  use  of  this 
 language  in  a  setting  such  as  this  would  be  found  actionably  indecent  and  profane.  Given  the  delicate  authority  the  courts  have  permitted  us  under  the  First  Amendment  to  enforce  the 
 indecency  laws,  the  Commission  must  exercise  care  in  affording  licensees  firm  yet  fair  treatment.  Nonetheless,  it  should  be  abundantly  clear  from  todays  action  that  we  are  setting  a  clear  line  to 
 broadcast  indecency  and  profanity  to  which  all  licensees  should  adhere  and  which  from  now  on  will  result  in  forfeitures  and  other  enforcement  sanctions. 


 Broadcasters,  themselves,  bear  much  of  the  responsibility  to  keep  our  airwaves  decent.  As  stewards  of  the  public  airwaves,  they  are  in  the  position  to  showcase  the  best  of  our  countrys 
 tremendous  cultural  heritage.  Their  choices  will  ultimately  guide  our  future  enforcement,  as  their  transgressions  will  result  in  increasingly  severe  and  swift  action. 


 3  See  2001  Policy  Statement  (stating  that  [  p]  rofanity  that  does  not  fall  under  one  of  the  above  two 
 categories  [obscenity  or  indecency]  is  fully  protected  by  the  First  Amendment  and  cannot  be  regulated.). 
2