Remarks of Commissioner Kevin J. Martin

21st Annual Institute on Telecommunications Policy & Regulation

December 5, 2003

Thank you, Dick, for that kind introduction.  And thanks to the PLI for inviting me to speak to you today.  At this conference last year, I said I hoped to spark a healthy debate.  I think I did that.  I'll try to make my remarks as interesting this year.

I thought I would touch on two things this morning.  First, I'm going to talk briefly about one of the media issues that has been getting an increasing amount of attention lately and that I think will be in the forefront of the next year: broadcast indecency.

Broadcast Indecency

Most of you likely are aware that there has been an increasing concern about the appropriateness of today's programming on television and radio.  Indeed, some have recently described the Commission as loosening its indecency standard.  For example, it has been reported that recent Commission decisions mean that the "Seven Dirty Words" are now OK to use on broadcast.[1]  Some observers have begun to make fun of this trend.  The Parents' Television Council filed a copy of the following show with the FCC, pointing out that it was taunting the Commission and poking fun at the agency's reasoning.  I hope my airing of this clip does not offend anyone.

Transcript of video:

Ms. Choksondik: Alright, children. In lieu of the common usage, I'm supposed to clarify the school's position on the word "shit."

Stan:  Wow!  We can say "shit" in school now?!

Kyle: This is ridiculous! Just because they say it on TV, it's alright?

Ms. Choksondik: Yes, but only in the figurative noun form or the adjective form.

Cartman: Huh?

Ms. Choksondik:  You can only use it in the non-literal sense. For instance, [turns and writes on the board] "That's a shitty picture of me." is now fine. However, the literal noun form of [writes] "This is a picture of shit." is still naughty. [crosses out the sentence].

Cartman: I don't get it.

Stan:  Me neither.

Unfortunately, I fear some at the Commission thought the show actually was advocating a new line of reasoning.  Listen to a recent Bureau-level Order (and again, I apologize for the language):

The word "fucking" may be crude and offensive, but, in the context presented here, did not describe sexual or excretory organs or activities.  Rather, the performer used the word "fucking" as an adjective or expletive to emphasize an exclamation….  Thus, because the complained-of material does not fall within the scope of the Commission's indecency prohibition, we reject the claims that this program content is indecent.[2]

I don't get it, either.

There is something wrong when our agency draws technical lines that even the people "on the edge" find laughable.  I cannot comment on the specifics of this case, but I am not sure that a word otherwise considered indecent becomes acceptable merely because it is used as an adjective. 

Our concept of what constituted "indecent" material changed from the "Seven Dirty Words" because the Commission thought that definition was too narrow.  We took context into account in order to broaden what would constitute indecent material.  But now we seem to be saying even the most objectionable of those words is OK? 

The FCC plays an important role in protecting Americans, particularly children, from indecent programming.  We have a statutory mandate to prohibit indecency on broadcast, and I take this responsibility seriously. 

I am concerned that the Commission is not doing all it should in this area.  We may be interpreting the statute too narrowly.  We also may need to enforce our rules more stringently.  For instance, I have been advocating counting each indecent utterance in a broadcast program as a separate violation, as the statute on its face appears to call for.[3]  In fact, in the clip I just showed, you might have noticed a counter in the corner adding up the number of times the swear word was used.  Counting each utterance as a separate violation could significantly increase the amount of fines that we could levy.

If we were implementing our statutory mandate effectively, our rules would serve as a significant deterrent to broadcasters considering the airing of obscene, indecent and profane material, and our fines would punish violators sternly.  I am concerned that we are failing on both fronts.  Just this past quarter, for instance, indecency complaints increased from 351 to 19,920.  Clearly, consumers are concerned.

I also am concerned that use of such profanity reflects a regrettable coarsening of the language and images on television today.  Many observers have commented on the increase in gratuitous sexual, violent, and offensive programming on broadcast television. 

I have been troubled by this trend for some time now, and have been actively encouraging broadcasters and cable operators to offer more tools for parents to deal with this trend.  For example, in an article I wrote at the end of 2002 and in my remarks before the National Association of Television Program Executives last January, I expressed my disappointment in the choices facing parents who want to watch television together as a family.[4] 

I encouraged broadcasters to bring back the Family Viewing Hour – to devote the first hour of prime time to family-friendly programs.  Yet, according to a recent study, it is during this hour that the greatest increase (95%) of inappropriate language has occurred.[5]

But I would not place the burden on broadcasters alone; I also have called on cable and satellite operators to offer a family-friendly programming package, so that parents could enjoy the excellent family-oriented channels available without being forced to subscribe (and pay for) the channels they believe have less appropriate programming.  Together, these steps would empower parents and enhance the value that television can offer.

I believe that this issue will increasingly become the center of debate at the Commission and on the Hill.