My letter to Chairman Powell

In honor of National F-Word Day, I just sent the following email to FCC Chairman Michael Powell. Feel free to use it as a template if you wanna join the cause...

--

Dear Chairman Powell -

With regards to your recent decision to put broadcasters "on warning" about any future broadcasts of "The F-word..."

What the F?

It seems to me your office has been doing little if anything to fulfill what should be the FCC's prime mandate: to ensure the public's access to a variety of opinions and viewpoints in the media.

In fact, despite the vocal oppsition of a clear majority of Americans of every political stripe, your office has pushed forward with new rules that would actually result in *less* media diversity.

So I find it disappointing and insulting to hear the FCC is cracking down on the use of a single word -- one which, by the way, can be heard uttered every day on just about any street corner in America -- while the FCC's most important job goes undone.

I am a grown man. I can handle the occasional utterance of a four-letter word on television. What I -- and the nation -- can't handle is the erosion of democracy that comes when fewer and fewer organizations control more and more media.

A group of internet denizens has declared today "National F-Word Day." We'll be using the word "FUCK" -- there I said it, that nasty word! -- as much as possible today, both in conversation and on our various websites, blogs, newsletters and 'zines, in protest of your recent announcement. I hope you hear the message loud and clear:

STAY OUT OF THE CULTURE WARS AND START DOING YOUR *REAL* FUCKING JOB.

Sincerely,

one_11



--

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 04-43

Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: March 3, 2004 Released: March 18, 2004

[...] We conclude, therefore, that NBC and other licensees that broadcast Bono’s use of
the “F-Word” during the live broadcast of the Golden Globe Awards violated 18 U.S.C. § 1464.43

By our action today, broadcasters are on clear notice that, in the future, they will be subject to potential enforcement action for any broadcast of the “F-Word” or a variation thereof in situations such as that here. We also take this opportunity to reiterate our recent admonition (which took place after the behavior at issue here) that serious multiple violations of our indecency rule by broadcasters may well lead to the commencement of license revocation proceedings, and that we may issue forfeitures for each indecent utterance in a particular broadcast. We note that one way broadcasters can easily ensure that they are not subject to enforcement action under our decision today is to adopt and successfully implement a delay/bleeping system for live broadcasts.


STATEMENT OF
CHAIRMAN MICHAEL K. POWELL
Re: Complaints Against Various Broadcast Licensees Regarding Their Airing of the
“Golden Globe Awards” Program

Today, we overturn the Enforcement Bureau’s October 2003 decision and find that the
use of the “F-word” during last year’s broadcast of the Golden Globes violates the federal statute.

This sends a signal to the industry that the gratuitous use of such vulgar language on broadcast television will not be tolerated.

For the first time, the Commission has applied the profanity section of the statute for the
broadcast of this highly offensive word, an application I fully support. The Commission has an important obligation to punish those who violate our law. In administering our authority, the Commission must afford parties fair warning and due process and not let our zeal trample these fundamental protections. Given that today's decision clearly departs from past precedent in important ways, I could not support a fine retroactively against the parties. Prospectively, parties are on notice that they could now face significant penalties for similar violations.

Going forward, as instructed by the Supreme Court, we must use our enforcement tools
cautiously. As I have said since becoming a Commissioner, government action in this area can
have a potential chilling effect on free speech. We guard against this by ruling when a clear line has been crossed and the government has no choice but to act. We will continue to respect the delicate balance of protecting the interests of the First Amendment with the need to protect our children.