|
September 21, 2006
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554
Re: Court
Remand of Section III.B of the Commission's March 2006
Omnibus Order Resolving Numerous
Broadcast Indecency Complaints
Dear Ms. Dortch:
We are writing today on behalf of
The Creative Coalition in response to the Federal
Communications Commission’s request for comment
concerning recent indecency decisions by the
Commission. The Creative Coalition strongly objects to
the Commission’s attempt to overturn longstanding
regulatory practice by subjecting protected speech to
potentially crippling fines. The Commission’s proposed
treatment of fleeting expletives is unwise, unwarranted,
and likely to chill vital free expression.
The Creative Coalition is a
national non-profit organization representing the
interests of artists and performers on issues of
importance to America’s creative community. We are
focused on promoting arts education, enhancing public
funding for the arts, and protecting of our First
Amendment liberties. We are particularly concerned that
the Commission’s recent efforts with the regard to
“broadcast indecency” threaten the creative freedom that
is at the core of America’s vibrant artistic community.
The indecency analysis offered by
the Commission in Paragraphs 100 through 145 of the
Notices of Apparent Liability and Memorandum Opinion and
Order adopted on February 21, 2006 (FCC 06-17) is
unwise. Under the Commission’s new order, the FCC
undoes thirty years of regulatory practice regarding
definitions of what is and is not profane. Yet here, at
the beginning of a proposed new regulatory regime, the
logic is already convoluted, and that reasoning is sure
to become only more arbitrary as the Commission
confronts new programs. One need look only at
paragraphs 126 and 127 for an example of where this path
will take the Commission. It simply substitutes the
opinions of regulators for the opinions of parents,
without any real foundation in legislation or logic.
This contorted reasoning is wholly
unnecessary. These decisions should be left where they
belong: with individuals and with parents. Broadcasters
can and do provide viewers with information about
program content. Parents may use that information to
monitor what programming their children watch, or they
may employ technological means to limit the programs to
which their children have access. By empowering parents
to make these decisions, we can both protect children
and the First Amendment.
The proposed order certainly will
have an impact on protected speech. While scripted
series clearly can be addressed through methods such as
television ratings and the use of blocking technology,
we recognize that there are distinct issues arising from
live broadcasts. We do not believe, however, that the
rare instances cited by the Commission and the complete
lack of harm shown justify such an expansion of the
government’s intrusion into broadcast media. While the
live broadcast examples cited by the Commission may be
regrettable, they are tame when compared to the language
an individual confronts on virtually any street in the
country. Our broadcast media should do no more and no
less than reflect our society back to us. Despite the
lack of any showing of harm, the Commission proposes a
regulatory regime that will chill the broadcast of live
events for fear of steep fines.
The artists and performers who
belong to The Creative Coalition stand strongly against
government efforts to regulate protected First Amendment
speech. For thirty years, the Commission determined not
to take action against fleeting expletives. We strongly
encourage the Commission to take this remand opportunity
to reaffirm that longstanding commitment to free
expression.
Thank you for this opportunity to
voice our concerns.
Sincerely,
Tony Goldwyn
Joe Pantoliano Michael
Frankfurt Robin Bronk
Co-President
Co-President
Chairman Executive Director
# # #
|