*Pages 1--1 from  Microsoft Word - 22434.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  279 
 Separate  Statement  of  Commissioner  Michael  J.  Copps,  Concurring  in  Part  and  Dissenting  in  Part 
 In  the  Matter  of  :  Litigation  Recovery  Trust  Petition  for  a  Declaration  Whether  Comsat  Corporation  has  Violated  the  Public  Interest  Standard  of  the  Communications  Satellite  Act,  47  U.  S.  C.  §  701,  Through 
 the  Transmission  of  Indecent  Material  or  Violated  47  U.  S.  C.  §  721  Through  Unauthorized  Purchases  of  Stock  in  Specified  Corporations 


 I  fully  support  the  decision  to  dismiss  the  complaints  of  the  Litigation  Recovery  Trust  (“  LRT”)  concerning  the  stock  purchases  at  issue  here.  I  also  wholeheartedly  support  the  Order’s  admonition  of 
 LRT  concerning  filings  that  could  be  interpreted  as  abusing  the  Commission’s  processes.  The  Commission  has  already  decided  that  Comsat  did  not  need  prior  authorization  for  these  purchases,  and 
 that  decision  was  upheld  in  court  on  appeal.  LRT  has  re-  raised  these  arguments  concerning  alleged  unauthorized  stock  purchases  numerous  times,  and  has  lost  each  time.  It  is  now  time  to  move  on. 


 However,  I  cannot  support  the  statement  in  this  item  that  the  petitioners’  complaints  “do  not  call  into  play  the  issue  of  indecency.”  It  is  true  that  the  services  at  issue  are  not  broadcast  services  subject  to 
 the  language  of  the  indecency  statutes.  It  is  also  true,  however,  that  these  services  were  being  provided  by  the  holder  of  FCC  licenses,  who,  like  all  licensees,  is  subject  to  the  general  obligation  to  serve  the 
 public  interest.  Moreover,  I  am  concerned  that  the  Order’s  statements  regarding  LRT’s  “unsupported  allegations”  of  indecency  could  be  read  to  put  too  great  a  responsibility  on  parties  who  complain  about 
 indecent  or  obscene  programming.  In  addition,  although  the  Commission  may  not  have  previously  interpreted  the  public  interest  standard  to  proscribe  the  transmission  of  “adult”  programming  that  was 
 not  otherwise  unlawful  pursuant  to  statute  or  regulation,  I  could  not  support  a  decision  that  might  preclude  the  Commission  from  doing  so  in  the  future,  should  circumstances  warrant  such  an  outcome. 


 Speaking  more  generally,  I  would  hope  that  all  Commission  licensees  –  whether  broadcasters,  cable  system  operator,  or  DBS  providers  –  would  go  the  extra  mile  in  exercising  self-  discipline  when 
 airing  programming  that  might  be  inappropriate  for  children  during  hours  when  children  are  likely  to  be  in  the  audience. 
1