Federal Communications Commission FCC 04-36
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Federal Communications Commission FCC 04-36 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) CAPSTAR TX LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ) File No. EB-02-IH-0564-AHB ) NAL/Acct. No. 200432080012 Licensee of ) FRN No. 0003474947 Station WAVW(FM) ) Facility ID No. 14376 (Formerly WZZR(FM)) ) Stuart, Florida ) ) and ) ) Station WCZR(FM) ) Facility ID No. 41066 Vero Beach, Florida ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 20, 2004 Released: March 18, 2004 By the Commission: Commissioners Martin and Adelstein issuing separate statements; Commissioner Copps dissenting and issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”) and section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules,1 we grant a complaint,2 and find that Capstar TX Limited Partnership (“Capstar”), licensee of Stations WAVW(FM),3 Stuart, Florida, and WCZR(FM) Vero Beach, Florida, apparently violated 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999, by willfully and repeatedly airing indecent material over the stations on May 31, 2002. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances in this case, we conclude that Capstar is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of Fifty-Five Thousand Dollars ($55,000.00). II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission received a complaint alleging that Station WZZR(FM) aired indecent material at 7:15 a.m. on May 31, 2002.4 The complainant included a detailed 1 47 U.S.C. § 503(b) (2002); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80 (2002). 2 See Letter dated June 1, 2002, to Federal Communications Commission (“Complaint Letter”). 3 On January 1, 2003, WZZR(FM) changed its call sign to WAVW(FM). 4 See Complaint Letter. Federal Communications Commission FCC 04-36 description of broadcast material that the complainant believed depicted an actual or apparent sex act between a man and woman.5 Because the complaint contained potentially indecent material that aired between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., Enforcement Bureau (“Bureau”) staff issued a letter of inquiry to the licensee.6 In its response to the staff’s inquiry, Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (“Clear Channel”), the indirect parent of Capstar, states that it has neither a tape nor a transcript and cannot determine whether the alleged material actually aired.7 Nevertheless, Clear Channel does not deny that the material aired as stated in the complaint, and maintains instead that, even if it aired the material in question, it was not actionably indecent.8 Specifically, Clear Channel states that the material consisted mainly of sounds of a woman moaning which was not patently offensive because the context of the sounds was unclear and because “any direct references to sex were isolated and brief” and not “lengthy, repetitive or explicit.”9 On August 19, 2003, the staff sent a supplemental letter of inquiry to Clear Channel, to which Clear Channel responded on September 3, 2003, indicating that the broadcast material at issue was also simulcast on Station WCZR(FM), Vero Beach, Florida, on the date and at the time alleged in the complaint.10 III. DISCUSSION 3. The Federal Communications Commission is authorized to license radio and television broadcast stations and is responsible for enforcing the Commission’s rules and applicable statutory provisions concerning the operation of those stations. The Commission’s role in overseeing program content is very limited. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution and section 326 of the Act prohibit the Commission from censoring program material and from interfering with broadcasters’ freedom of expression.11 The Commission does, however, have the authority to enforce statutory and regulatory provisions restricting indecency and obscenity. Specifically, it is a violation of federal law to broadcast obscene or indecent programming. Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1464 prohibits the utterance of “any obscene, indecent or profane language by means of radio communication.”12 In addition, section 73.3999 of the Commission’s rules provides that radio and television stations shall not broadcast 5 Id. 6 See Letter dated July 22, 2002, from Charles W. Kelley, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Capstar. 7 See Letter dated August 21, 2002, from Kenneth E. Wyker, Senior Vice President and General Counsel for Clear Channel, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (“Clear Channel Response to Inquiry I”). 8 See id. 9 Id. at 2-4. 10 See Letter dated September 3, 2003, from Richard W. Wolf, Vice President for Clear Channel, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (“Clear Channel Response to Inquiry II”). 11 See 47 U.S.C. § 326. 12 18 U.S.C. § 1464. 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 04-36 obscene material at any time, and, consistent with a subsequent statute and court decision,13 shall not broadcast indecent material during the period 6 a.m. through 10 p.m.14 4. Under section 503(b)(1) of the Act, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty.15 In order to impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent liability, the notice must be received, and the person against whom the notice has been issued must have an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture penalty should be imposed.16 The Commission will then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule.17 As we set forth in greater detail below, we conclude under this standard that Capstar is apparently liable for a forfeiture for its apparent willful and repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and section 73.3999 of the Commission’s rules. A. Indecency Analysis 5. Any consideration of government action against allegedly indecent programming must take into account the fact that such speech is protected under the First Amendment.18 The federal courts consistently have upheld Congress’s authority to regulate the broadcast of indecent 13 Public Telecommunications Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-356, 106 Stat. 949 (1992) (setting the current safe harbor of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. for the broadcast of indecent material); see also Action for Children’s Television v. FCC, 58 F. 3d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (en banc), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1072 (1996) (“ACT III”) (affirming restrictions prohibiting the transmission of indecent material between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.). 14 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999. 15 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1); see also 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(D) (forfeitures for violation of 14 U.S.C. § 1464). Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines willful as “the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of [any] act, irrespective of any intent to violate” the law. 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). The legislative history to section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that this definition of willful applies to both sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982), and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the section 503(b) context. See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991) (“Southern California Broadcasting Co.”). The Commission may also assess a forfeiture for violations that are merely repeated, and not willful. See, e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc., Grand Isle, Louisiana, Notice of Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359 (2001) (issuing a Notice of Apparent Liability for, inter alia, a cable television operator’s repeated signal leakage). “Repeated” merely means that the act was committed or omitted more than once, or lasts more than one day. Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, ¶ 5; Callais Cablevision, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd at 1362, ¶ 9. 16 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f). 17 See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591, ¶ 4 (2002) (forfeiture paid). 18 U.S. CONST., amend. I; See Action for Children’s Television v. FCC, 852 F.2d 1332, 1344 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (“ACT I”). 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 04-36 material, as well the Commission’s interpretation and implementation of the governing statute.19 Nevertheless, the First Amendment is a critical constitutional limitation that demands that, in indecency determinations, we proceed cautiously and with appropriate restraint.20 6. The Commission defines indecent speech as language that, in context, depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities or organs in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.21 Indecency findings involve at least two fundamental determinations. First, the material alleged to be indecent must fall within the subject matter scope of our indecency definition—that is, the material must describe or depict sexual or excretory organs or activities. Second, the broadcast must be patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.22 7. As an initial matter, Clear Channel does not dispute that it aired material describing or depicting sexual and excretory activities and organs.23 That material, therefore, warrants further scrutiny to determine whether or not it was patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.24 8.