Weighing in on the FCC’s indecency proceeding, Saga Communications applauded the Commission’s decision to sweep away a massive pile of complaints that were shaky for various reasons, and suggested a triage approach to deal with future cases in a timely manner.
Saga noted that there are real problems with the current indecency enforcement policy.
For example, it was executing routine license-renewal applications in 2005, when it learned that one of its stations had the renewal placed on hold because of an unadjudicated indecency complaint. It had to dig, through counsel, to discover the nature of the complaint, and through counsel, pointed out that even if the complaint was true, it was not actionable. In the end, the license is still on hold, some eight years later.
This state of regulatory limbo, Saga said, likely makes it impossible for the station to receive action on any kind of FCC filing, up to and including a request to sell the station.
The first stage of the triage proposal would divide all complaints into two groups:
* Those that are not likelyl to result in a sanction, or are unsupported by probative evidence, even if the underlying facts are true; and
* Those that are likely to result in a sanction, if the underlying facts are true and supported by probative evidence.
Those falling into the first category would be disposed of swiftly. The Saga proposal then divides up those in the second category:
* Those that are serious enough to merit an “enforcement hold” on the station; and
* Those that merit a sanction, but are not so serious to merit an enforcement hold.
Saga said that relieving itself of having to deal with meritless complaints will give the FCC more time to deal with the others in a timely manner.
Saga also pointed out that the underpinning for indecency regulation comes from a criminal statute, which states, “Whosoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
Saga said that therefore, a finding of indecency and a subsequent punishment should be a matter for a federal district court, not the FCC, and suggested that indecency enforcement be taken completely away from the FCC and turned over to the Department of Justice.
Saga concluded, “If the broadcast of obscene, indecent and profane language is not important enough to merit criminal prosecution in the federal courts, a question is raised as to how the broadcast of such language can be important enough to justify the loss of a federal license or the imposition of significant forfeiture.”
RBR-TVBR observation: These are simple common-sense suggestions. Does that mean they are doomed in a city were most Americans fail to detect any signs of common sense? Stay tuned.
