Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Fines may rise obscenely high

Congress proposes a hike on fines for "indecent" programming up to $500,000.

By ANITA KUMAR
Published February 17, 2005

WASHINGTON - A year after a racy Super Bowl halftime show shocked Americans, Congress moved closer Wednesday to imposing unprecedented fines on broadcasters and artists who air offensive radio and television programs.

Supporters and critics agreed that the harsher penalties - maximum fines of $500,000 per violation, up from $32,500 - will change what the public sees and hears because broadcasters and artists will censor themselves.

What they don't agree on is whether it's a long overdue step toward reigning in sexually explicit programming or a lamentable trampling of free speech.

On the House floor, proponents decried Janet Jackson's exposed breast; opponents countered with what they said was the regrettable decision by gun-shy television stations not to air the movie Saving Private Ryan.

In the post-Super Bowl uproar over what will be tolerated, stations also have rejected an ad that alluded to gay marriage and initiated seconds-long delays on live performances.

"The rules on indecency are very gray, so everyone is going to err on the side of extreme caution," said Jonathan Rintels, executive director of the Center for Creative Voices in Media, which opposed the bill. "That's really not in the interest of democracy and culture."

Supporters of the bill say certain language and sexually provocative material can harm society, especially children, and they blame the risque programs of today on intense media competition.

"What this shows is Congress is demanding action," said Patrick Trueman, senior legal counselor at the Family Research Council, which supported the bill. "This will really cause the owners of stations to say we have zero tolerance for indecency."

A 1978 Supreme Court ruling gives the Federal Communications Commission the right to regulate indecent material on noncable and nonsatellite stations between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when children are more likely to be watching TV. It does not address violence.

The bill would not change the current standards or even the vague definition of indecency, which includes references to "sexual or excretory activities or organs." But proponents say it likely would make broadcasters, especially smaller ones, take notice before they air certain programs. Current fines are too low to give deep-pocketed broadcasters that incentive.

"Fines should be meaningful, they ought to mean something," said Robert J. Thompson, professor of popular culture and director of the Center for the Study of Popular Television at Syracuse University. "A fine ought to hurt - and this will."

Congress had talked of dramatically increasing fines for more than a year after Bono, lead singer of the rock band U2, cursed during the live broadcast of the Golden Globe awards in 2003. It already had scheduled hearings when Jackson bared her breast at last year's Super Bowl.

Complaints about other TV and radio shows poured in to the FCC. The agency, criticized for its lack of enforcement, stepped up its efforts, though it still doesn't monitor programs. It relies on consumer complaints to initiate independent proceedings.

All five members of the FCC - three Republicans and two Democrats - favor increasing the fines.

"This growing coarseness on television and radio has resulted in dramatic rise in public concern and outrage about what is being broadcast into their homes," FCC Chairman Michael Powell testified to Congress last year. "As a parent, I share the displeasure and fatigue of millions of Americans about the erosion of common decency standards on television."

In 2000, the agency received 111 complaints and fined seven radio stations a total of $48,000. Four years later, the agency received 1.07-million complaints and fined nine radio stations and three TV stations almost $8-million.

The FCC received more than 530,000 complaints about Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" and eventually fined 20 CBS stations a total of $550,000. Other penalties included $755,000 in fines for graphic drug and sex talk on the now-defunct, Tampa-based Bubba the Love Sponge radio show and a record $1.75-million fine for indecency complaints against Howard Stern and other Clear Channel radio personalities.

Officials at Clear Channel told Congress that the fines shouldn't be raised because they were already taking action. Bubba is off the air, and Stern will be switching to unregulated satellite radio.

The National Association of Broadcasters agrees.

"We continue to believe that voluntary industry initiatives that have been taken by a number of broadcasters thus far are far preferable to government regulation when dealing with programming issues," the group said in a statement.

Last year the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly to raise fines but could not agree on compromise legislation. This year, though, sponsors are optimistic it will pass.

The House passed its version Wednesday, 389-38.

"This is a penalty that makes broadcasters sit up and take notice," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas. "This legislation makes great strides in making it safe for families to come back into their living room."

Most members who voted against were Democrats, including two from Florida - Alcee Hastings of Miramar and Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Weston.

"We would put Big Brother in charge of deciding what is art and what is free speech," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill. "We would see self- and actual-censorship rise to new and undesirable heights."

The House version includes a provision that, after three violations, a broadcaster must have a license revocation hearing. Maximum fine per violation would be $500,000.

The Senate version would raise the maximum fine to $325,000, with a cap of $3-million a day per broadcaster, to protect smaller broadcasters not owned by large corporations.

All fines could be appealed in court, as they can now.

--Times researcher Kitty Bennett contributed to this report. Staff writer Anita Kumar can be reached at kumar@sptimes.com or 202463-0576.

[Last modified February 17, 2005, 01:22:08]