*Pages 1--1 from  Microsoft Word - 36783*
 STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  KEVIN  J.  MARTIN 
 APPROVING  IN  PART,  DISSENTING  IN  PART 
 Re:  Complaints  Against  Various  Broadcast  Licensees  Regarding  Their  Airing  Of  The  “Golden  Globe  Awards”  Program,  Memorandum  Opinion  And  Order,  March  3,  2004 


 I  am  pleased  that  the  Commission  finally  is  making  clear  that  the  use  of  the  “F-  word”  during  this  prime-  time  broadcast  was  both  indecent  and  profane,  regardless  of  whether  used  as  an 
 adjective,  adverb,  or  gerund.  I  am  particularly  pleased  that,  at  long  last,  the  Commission  is  enforcing  the  statutory  prohibition  against  the  broadcast  of  profanity.  Better  late  than  never. 


 I  firmly  support  these  conclusions,  and  approve  these  aspects  of  this  Order. 
 I  disagree,  however,  with  the  Order’s  characterization  of  our  precedent  on  indecency,  and  the  corresponding  conclusion  that  licensees  were  not  on  notice  that  the  F-  word  is  indecent. 


 Even  more  troubling  is  the  conclusion  that  we  cannot  issue  a  fine  for  the  use  of  profanity.  The  majority  argues  that  there  is  no  notice.  How  ironic  that  the  majority  relies  on  the 
 Commission’s  own  failure  to  enforce  its  statutory  mandate  as  the  basis  for  NBC  not  knowing  that  the  F-  word  is  prohibited  profanity.  1  Taking  a  step  back,  I  can’t  help  but  think  NBC  was  “on 
 notice”  that  the  F-  word  was  profane.  In  fact,  NBC  hasn’t  even  claimed  that  they  were  not  on  notice  that  the  F-  word  was  profane.  Yet  the  majority  concludes  otherwise,  and  issues  no  fine.  I 
 cannot  support  this  analysis,  and  therefore  dissent  in  part. 


 1  I  note  that  the  Order  explains  that  current  case  law,  including  a  recent  decision  interpreting  the  very  statutory 
 provision  at  issue,  defines  profanity  according  to  its  common  interpretation.  Order  at  ¶13.  Treatises  document  the  rejection  of  old  case  law  that  had  found  profanity  to  mean  blasphemy.  12  Am.  Jur.  2d 


 Blasphemy  and  Profanity  9.  But  even  the  very  old  case  law  equating  profanity  with  blasphemy  did  not  limit  profanity  to  blasphemy.  Moreover,  the  Commission’s  own  precedent  has  never  implied  that  profanity  was 
 limited  to  blasphemy.  Indeed,  the  only  case  on  point  found  blasphemous  language  did  not  constitute  profanity.  Raycom  America,  Inc.,  Licensee  of  Station  WMC-  TV,  Memphis,  TN,  Memorandum  Opinion  and 
 Order,  18  FCC  Rcd.  4186,  4187  (2003). 
1