*Pages 1--1 from  Microsoft Word - 46510.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  05-  23 
 STATEMENT  OF  CHAIRMAN  MICHAEL  K.  POWELL 
 Re:  Complaints  Against  Various  Licensees  Regarding  Their  Broadcast  on  November  11,  2004,  of  ABC  Television  Network’s  Presentation  of  the  Film  “Saving  Private  Ryan,” 


 Today,  we  reaffirm  that  content  cannot  be  evaluated  without  careful  consideration  of  context.  Saving  Private  Ryan  is  filled  with  expletives  and  material  arguably  unsuitable  for  some 
 audiences,  but  it  is  not  indecent  in  the  unanimous  view  of  the  Commission. 
 This  film  is  a  critically  acclaimed  artwork  that  tells  a  gritty  story—  one  of  bloody  battles  and  supreme  heroism.  The  horror  of  war  and  the  enormous  personal  sacrifice  it  draws  on  cannot 
 be  painted  in  airy  pastels.  The  true  colors  are  muddy  brown  and  fire  red  and  any  accurate  depiction  of  this  significant  historical  tale  could  not  be  told  properly  without  bringing  that  sense 
 to  the  screen.  It  is  for  these  reasons  that  the  FCC  has  previously  declined  to  rule  this  film  indecent. 


 This,  of  course,  is  not  to  suggest  that  legal  content  is  not  otherwise  objectionable  to  many  Americans.  Recognizing  that  fact,  it  is  the  responsible  broadcaster  that  will  provide  full  and  wide 
 disclosure  of  what  viewers  are  likely  to  see  and  hear,  to  allow  individuals  and  families  to  make  their  own  well-  informed  decisions  whether  to  watch  or  not.  I  believe  ABC  and  its  affiliated 
 stations  made  a  responsible  effort  to  do  just  that  in  this  case. 
 Fair  warning  is  appropriately  an  important  consideration  in  indecency  cases.  In  complaints  you  often  find  that  Americans  are  not  excessively  prudish,  only  that  they  are  fed  up 
 with  being  ambushed  with  content  at  times  and  places  they  least  expect  it.  It  is  insufficient  to  tell  consumers  not  to  watch  objectionable  content,  if  the  “shock”  value  is  dependent  on  the  element  of 
 surprise.  This  is  particularly  true  in  broadcast  television,  where  viewers  are  accustomed  and  encouraged  to  order  their  viewing  by  parts  of  the  day—  morning  shows,  daytime  TV  and  late 
 night  have  long  been  the  zones  in  which  expectations  are  set.  When  those  lines  are  blurred,  the  consumer  loses  a  degree  of  control,  a  degree  of  choice. 


 Context  remains  vital  to  any  consideration  of  whether  profanity  or  sexual  content  constitutes  legally  actionable  indecency.  The  Commission  must  stay  faithful  to  considering 
 complaints  within  their  setting  and  temper  any  movement  toward  stricter  liability  if  it  hopes  to  give  full  effect  to  the  confines  of  the  First  Amendment. 
1