First Amendment topicsAbout the First Amendment
News Story
 
FCC head opposes strict sanctions for indecency violators

By The Associated Press
04.21.04

LAS VEGAS — Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, said yesterday he did not support a bill that would take away a broadcast station’s license after its third indecency violation.

He also suggested he would support extending decency regulations from broadcasters to other media, such as cable and satellite, if the move were supported by lawmakers.

“I don’t think you should reduce something as facile and vague as indecency to clear cause-and-effect consequences,” he told a conference of the National Association of Broadcasters. “I don’t like the idea that we could trip into license revocation.”

Speaking about decency regulations, he said, “I don’t believe the First Amendment should change channels when it goes from seven to 107. I don’t want to defend that distinction because I don’t believe in it.”

Asked if he would support legislation extending content regulations to cable and satellite, he said: “I think the government should be exceedingly conservative about any regulation of content for anyone.”

He also added: “I don’t generally support the extension of content rules unless Congress supports a statement asking us to do so.”

In a question-and-answer session with Sam Donaldson of ABC News, Powell also said broadcasters would not be required to phase out analog signals in favor of digital signals until 85% of households had digital televisions. One proposal calls for the phase-out to begin in two years, but Powell said that would be much too soon.

Powell also labeled as a “red herring” a proposal by Mel Karmazin, the president of Viacom Inc., for more specific decency statutes. Viacom owns both CBS, which aired the controversial Super Bowl halftime show with Janet Jackson, as well as Howard Stern’s radio show.

“You do not want the government to write a red book of what you can say and what you can’t say,” Powell said.

He compared such legislation to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which spell out mandatory minimum sentences for specific crimes. While such standards make things clearer, they also take away the ability of decision makers to reach their own judgment, he said.


Related

House votes to raise fines for indecent programming

ACLU criticizes move, saying that freedom of speech could be impinged as broadcasters try to follow vague definition of what is indecent. 03.12.04

Broadcasters to consider code of conduct
Move comes at urging of FCC head, who warned meeting attendees that leaving it to government to set decency standards would 'not only chill speech, it [might] deep-freeze it.' 04.01.04

Media firms, artists ask FCC to reconsider F-word ruling
Group says agency's determination that Bono's use of expletive during Golden Globes was indecent is 'chilling free speech across the broadcast landscape.' 04.20.04

Utah lawyer sues Viacom over Super Bowl halftime show
Media company's attorney calls Eric Stephenson's claim that performance was falsely advertised a stretch, says show's content was protected by First Amendment. 05.25.04

Senate OKs higher fines for indecency
Lawmakers move measure without debate as part of massive defense bill, also approve provision that would delay FCC's media-ownership rules. 06.23.04

Howard Stern, Powells spar over FCC regs, free speech
Colin Powell rejects shock jock's charge that son Michael Powell heads agency thanks only to dad. 10.28.04

Michael Powell stepping down as head of FCC
Believer in communications deregulation nevertheless favored punishing broadcast indecency. 01.21.05

News summary page
View the latest news stories throughout the First Amendment Center Online.

print this   Print


Last system update: Friday, July 25, 2008 | 12:50:26
 SEARCH  MORE
About this site
About the First Amendment
About the First Amendment Center
Video/RSS/podcasts
First Amendment programs
State of the First Amendment
reports

First Reports
Supreme Court
Experts
Columnists
First Amendment publications
First Amendment Center history
Glossary
Freedom Sings™
Events
First Amendment
Schools

Congressional Research Service reports
Guest editorials
FOI material
The First Amendment
Library

Lesson plans
freedomforum.org
Newseum
Contact us
Privacy statement
Related links