Waitaminute, the episodes in question were broadcast in 2002, and now, in late December 2004 the FCC is just getting around to saying, "You shouldn't have done that and we're fining you"?
[bleep] that -- there ought to be a statute of limitations on indecency violations, if for no other reason than the possibility of another station saying, "Well, what that first station did must have been okay, since they didn't get in trouble for it," then getting nailed for something they broadcast in the year between the example and the reaction to it.
If it wasn't objectionable enough to warrant a timely response, was it really objectionable enough to warrant any punitive response?
(Note that this is separate from the "we're going to fine you but it'll take a while for all the arm-wrestling to be completed" aspect. IF I'm reading that news report correctly, it sounds like the FCC only just now got around to telling the stations that what they did was wrong.)
Re: This seems sorta relevant:
[bleep] that -- there ought to be a statute of limitations on indecency violations, if for no other reason than the possibility of another station saying, "Well, what that first station did must have been okay, since they didn't get in trouble for it," then getting nailed for something they broadcast in the year between the example and the reaction to it.
If it wasn't objectionable enough to warrant a timely response, was it really objectionable enough to warrant any punitive response?
(Note that this is separate from the "we're going to fine you but it'll take a while for all the arm-wrestling to be completed" aspect. IF I'm reading that news report correctly, it sounds like the FCC only just now got around to telling the stations that what they did was wrong.)