*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 35178*
 SEPARATE  STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  JONATHAN  S.  ADELSTEIN 
 Re:  Clear  Channel  Broadcasting  Licenses,  Inc.,  Notice  of  Apparent  Liability  for  Forfeiture 
 The  Commission  has  a  duty  to  enforce  statutory  and  regulatory  provisions  restricting  broadcast  indecency.  The  material  broadcast  by  these  four  Clear  Channel  radio  stations  is 
 undeniably  graphic  and  explicit  in  its  sexual  content  and  clearly  intended  to  shock  listeners.  Clear  Channel  and,  indeed,  this  particular  “Bubba  the  Love  Sponge”  program  have  been  the 
 subject  of  repeated  Commission  indecency  actions  in  the  past.  Given  the  explicit  nature  of  the  broadcast  material  and  the  history  of  prior  offenses,  this  is  the  type  of  serious  repeated  behavior 
 that  I  believe  would  warrant  initiation  of  license  revocation  hearings. 
 In  fairness,  however,  this  material  was  broadcast  in  2001.  The  Commission  clarified  in  an  April  2003  order  that  it  was  broadening  its  range  of  enforcement  approaches  and  tools  to 
 combat  indecency  on  our  nation’s  public  airwaves.  For  this  reason,  I  approve  of  today’s  Order  as  legally  appropriate.  The  egregious  nature  of  the  material  clearly  warrants  the  statutory  maximum 
 $27,500  fine  per  violation.  While  the  Commission  at  all  times  has  the  authority  to  initiate  license  revocation  hearings  or  sanction  for  multiple  indecent  utterances  in  a  given  program  segment,  it 
 can  be  argued  that  the  Commission  was  not  employing  these  approaches  at  the  time  this  material  was  broadcast.  Nonetheless,  as  we  made  clear  last  year,  broadcasters  are  now  aware  that  the 
 Commission  will  not  hesitate  to  use  its  full  range  of  enforcement  sanctions  for  indecent  material  broadcast  after  April  2003. 


 I  also  acknowledge  the  importance  of  broadcasters  adhering  to  the  public  inspection  file  rules.  Documents  pertaining  to  an  FCC  investigation  are  clearly  within  the  scope  of  the 
 information  that  must  be  maintained  in  a  manner  accessible  to  the  listening  public.  In  this  case,  each  of  the  stations  inexplicably  failed  to  include  complaints  related  to  the  airing  of  this  material 
 in  their  public  files. 
 A  broadcast  license  is  a  public  privilege.  In  return,  broadcasters  have  a  responsibility  to  serve  the  public.  This  public  interest  responsibility  clearly  encompasses  protecting  children  from 
 indecency  on  the  airwaves  and  facilitating  public  access  to  documentation  through  which  the  station  can  remain  accountable  to  its  local  community  and  listening  public.  These  stations 
 exhibited  a  blatant  disregard  for  both. 
1

2