******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                        STATEMENT OF 
                COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS
            APPROVING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART

Re:  Complaints Against Various Broadcast Licensees 
Regarding Their Airing of the ``Golden Globe Awards,'' 
Memorandum Opinion and Order

     I support the decision to find the utterance of the f-
word on NBC's broadcast of the ``Golden Globe Awards'' to be 
both indecent and profane.  I found ludicrous the 
Enforcement Bureau's decision that a word that might 
otherwise be indecent is not indecent or profane merely 
because it is used as an adjective or expletive.   The f-
word clearly meets the definition of indecency whether used 
as an adjective, expletive, ``intensifier'' (as NBC 
curiously argues here), or any other part of speech.  

     I do not agree with all aspects of the majority's 
analysis.  While I am pleased that the majority recognizes 
that profanity is not limited to blasphemy, I disagree that 
we need to give notice before we apply the law of the land.  
The better argument is that the statute itself gives due 
notice.  Along these same lines, I disagreed last year when 
a majority at the Commission similarly found that notice was 
required prior to sending an indecency case to a hearing for 
license revocation, notwithstanding that the statute 
expressly provides for such an action.  In past cases, when 
there have been truly outrageous violations or repeat 
offenses, I have sought to have cases sent to hearings to 
determine if the license should be revoked.  This may not be 
a case where a revocation of license is in order.  But 
neither is it a case that warrants no penalty at all.  I 
believe the Commission would be fully within its rights to 
impose a fine for this particular instance of profanity and 
indecency.  We send entirely the wrong signal by failing to 
do so.