*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 39102*
 STATEMENT  OF  CHAIRMAN  MICHAEL  K.  POWELL 
 Re:  Clear  Channel  Communications,  Inc. 
 Today’s  consent  decree  marks  a  significant  victory  for  the  Commission  and  the  American  public.  Through  the  consent  decree,  we  have  secured  the  highest  enforcement 
 concessions  by  a  broadcaster  in  Commission  history.  Clear  Channel  has  agreed  to  make  the  highest  enforcement-  related  payment  to  the  Treasury  by  a  broadcaster  in  Commission 
 history--$  1.75  million.  In  addition,  Clear  Channel  has  now  formally  admitted  that  it  violated  the  law  and  has  made  binding  commitments  to  clean  up  its  act,  including 
 preventive  measures  such  as  training  for  on-  air  personalities  and  employees  that  participate  in  programming  decisions  and  the  use  of  time  delays  in  its  broadcasts.  In 
 addition,  those  accused  of  violating  the  Commission’s  rules  will  be  suspended  and  if  ultimately  found  to  violate  our  rules,  will  be  terminated. 


 Notwithstanding  these  accomplishments,  the  government’s  involvement  in  content  regulation  can  be  a  dangerous  game.  Even  where  well  intended,  in  our  desire,  for 
 instance,  to  protect  children  from  indecent  broadcasts,  encroachments  on  content  can  have  adverse  affects  on  the  public  interest.  By  its  very  nature,  government  action,  or 
 even  mere  threats,  to  quell  protected  speech  can  have  the  unintended  consequence  of  depriving  the  public  of  a  speaker’s  artistic,  literary,  scientific  or  political  viewpoint. 


 Grounded  in  the  First  Amendment  is  our  forefathers’  concern  that  the  policymaker  could  be  tempted  to  misuse  power  for  their  own  self-  interest.  They  knew 
 that  the  sword  that  wields  the  power  to  intentionally  abridge  speech  and  information  is  the  most  potent  instrument  of  all.  As  the  Commission  is  tasked  with  walking  the  delicate 
 balance  of  protecting  the  interests  of  the  First  Amendment  with  the  need  to  protect  our  children,  it  is  incumbent  upon  us  to  make  best  efforts  to  avoid  the  realization  of  our 
 forefathers’  concerns. 
 This  task  is  made  easier  when  our  licensees  wrestle  the  difficult  decisions  away  from  the  government  and  take  the  responsibility  for  what  they  broadcast  over  our  nation’s 
 airwaves.  In  the  case  of  Clear  Channel  Communications,  they  have  done  just  that  through  the  substantial  commitments  agreed  to  in  this  consent  decree. 


 Oddly  enough,  these  actions  are  not  sufficient  for  some  on  the  Commission.  In  their  zealousness,  they  would  prefer  to  expend  valuable  Commission  resources  to  fully 
 investigate  each  complaint  against  Clear  Channel  only  to  inflict  more  punishment.  Enforcement  of  our  regulations  is  not,  however,  simply  a  matter  of  punishment  for  past 
 behavior.  More  importantly,  our  enforcement  regime  is  designed  to  deter  future  illegal  behavior. 


 Where,  as  here,  the  licensee  has  taken  significant  steps  to  guard  against  future  violations,  the  benefits  of  entering  into  a  consent  decree  for  the  government  and  the 
 public  are  obvious.  Not  only  will  a  substantial  amount  of  money  be  submitted  to  the 
1
 Treasury  by  the  company,  but  we  achieve  significant  commitments  from  the  company  that  the  fines  are  intended  to  produce.  In  addition,  the  government,  and  therefore  the 
 public,  will  save  time  and  resources,  which  can  be  redeployed  to  focus  on  more  egregious  violators  that  are  less  willing  to  take  preventive  steps.  Finally,  the  government  gains  an 
 admission  of  responsibility  from  the  licensee  without  going  to  the  laborious  and  expensive  process  of  prosecuting  these  actions  in  court. 


 For  one  to  toss  aside  these  public  benefits  and  demand  another  pound  of  flesh  suggests  that  nothing  short  of  economic  ruin  or  license  revocation  will  truly  satisfy.  I 
 believe  such  stances  are  excessively  chilling  of  protected  speech  in  this  country  and  fail  to  be  respectful  of  the  limits  imposed  upon  us  by  the  First  Amendment. 
2