-Caveat Lector-

Some background:

http://www.politechbot.com/p-02049.html
Prudish FCC commissioner plans to run for New Mexico governor
May 21, 2001

http://www.politechbot.com/p-01864.html
FCC's Tristani complains about yet another "indecent" broadcast
March 29, 2001

http://www.politechbot.com/p-01781.html
Prudish FCC commissioner insists "piss" should be punished
March 2, 2001

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:          News Media Contact:
June 27, 2001                   Paul Gallant at 202-418-2300


PRESS STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER GLORIA TRISTANI
Re: Enforcement Bureau Letter Ruling on Indecency Complaint
Against WTXF-TV, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


        The FCC's Enforcement Bureau has dismissed an indecency complaint filed by
Ms. Cherie Degnan of Ambler, Pennsylvania.  On January 23, 2001, Ms. Degnan
wrote to the FCC's Enforcement Bureau and explained that, earlier that day,
"full frontal male and female nudity was broadcast as part of a News
Program" on WTXF-TV of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  According to Ms.
Degnan, those images were broadcast at approximately 8:53 a.m. without
advance warning from the television station.  The Enforcement Bureau
dismissed Ms. Degnan's complaint because, according to the Bureau, her
failure to provide a "tape, transcript, or significant excerpts" of the
broadcast prevented the Bureau from determining whether the images
broadcast were indecent in context.

        At the outset, I would note that that the Bureau letter dismissing Ms.
Degnan's complaint seems to rely erroneously on the First Amendment to
justify the procedural hurdles involved with the filing of indecency
complaints. The Enforcement Bureau tells Ms. Degnan that "the FCC generally
requires complainants to provide a full or partial tape or transcript or
significant excerpts of the program" because a broadcaster's speech has
certain protections under the First Amendment.

In fact, the First Amendment has nothing to do with the Bureau's
evidentiary standard for complaint filing.  The First Amendment simply
ensures that, once all the evidence is in, the FCC does not punish
broadcast speech that is not indecent.  The First Amendment does not
require a certain level of proof in a citizen's complaint to the FCC.  The
FCC is free to gather evidence however it wants - from complainants or from
broadcasters.

        These complaint filing requirements (tape, transcript, or significant
excerpt) are not only unrelated to the First Amendment, they are
disconnected from reality.  People do not normally tape or transcribe the
programs they are watching or listening to, and thus it is unfair to expect
people file such material with their complaints.  If for some reason the
complainant happens to have that information, the easier it will be for the
Commission to evaluate the complaint.  But failing to produce that kind of
documentation should not result in dismissal of indecency complaints, as is
the Bureau's general practice.

        As to Ms. Degnan's specific complaint, there is no disagreement that
context is critical in determining whether the broadcast of a particular
statement or image is indecent.   We know from Ms. Degnan's letter that
male and female frontal nudity was televised in the morning, when children
are likely to be in the audience.  We also know that courts have affirmed
the Commission's ban on the broadcast of "material that, in context,
depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by
contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or
excretory activities or organs."  Since Ms. Degnan's complaint appears to
describe the televised broadcast of "sexual organs" - in her words "full
frontal male and female nudity" - during the time of day when indecent
broadcasting is prohibited, it is certainly possible that the Bureau would
have found an indecency violation.  In my view, the complaint contained
sufficient evidence to begin an investigation into whether the context of
this nudity amounted to an indecent broadcast.  At a minimum, Ms. Degnan's
complaint merited more than the summary dismissal it received from the Bureau.

In sum, the Bureau has continued to enforce unreasonable filing
requirements for indecency complaints (tape, transcript, or significant
excerpt).  The Bureau then failed to mitigate that problem by deciding not
to contact WTXF to inquire about Ms. Degnan's complaint.  The Bureau's
action - or inaction - in this case will further embolden broadcasters to
ignore the FCC's rules against indecent broadcasting, and in so doing,
encourage them to air material that is harmful to children.

I sincerely hope the Commission will reevaluate its handling of indecency
complaints.  The indecency complaint process, as presently configured,
tilts sharply in favor of broadcasters and against members of the public
who wish to register an indecency complaint.  Surely there is a more
effective way of enforcing Congress's ban on indecent broadcasting while
affording all due fairness to broadcasters.  Making the complaint process
more accessible to the public would be good public policy and would more
faithfully comply with Congress's directives to the FCC regarding broadcast
indecency.

---




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to