That was it. We were showing off our genitalia. According to his complaint, he did not receive a promised return call from the station's manager. Mr. Schmid's complaint exemplifies the difficult responsibilities the FCC shares with parents. While government has no place in regulating meaningful discussion about sexuality or anatomy, it is the context of a broadcast that best tells a listener whether a chosen theme is primarily prurient or educational.
Context has many facets.
The Bureau once again dismissed a complaint without seeking the information needed to answer the context question and construed the facts alleged in the complaint in the light most favorable to the broadcaster rather than the complainant. By failing to seek additional facts from the broadcaster, the Commission has failed to discharge its obligation to protect children from indecent material on the public airwaves. Accordingly, the better rule is for this agency to vigorously complete the factual picture by obtaining information from the broadcaster. At a minimum, parents should be entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend a complaint to overcome any factual deficiency. This rule should apply in every case, unless it is manifestly clear that no amendment can cure the defect.