Lingering effects from the debate last year -- when the FCC, and Powell in particular, were blindsided by public and congressional opposition to further media consolidation -- may be at work in the indecency crackdown today. "Powell absolutely got roughed up last summer," says Gene Kimmelman, director of the Washington office of the Consumers Union. "He was just out of step with mainstream America with concerns about media consolidation. He's been extremely sensitized to his precarious political position with Congress and the American public. The White House was not pleased they had to spend so much political capital over media consolidation. Now he's scrambling, particularly with the presidential election coming up, trying to prevent concern about raunchy programming from trashing President Bush's record."

"I call it the Barca-lounge convergence," adds Hundt. "Powell jumped up from his reclined position in which he watched the Super Bowl and discovered the airwaves were full of trash, and he did it during the beginning of the election year."

Powell is also feeling heat from some conservative media lobbyists who claim his new moral vigilance is not authentic. "Michael Powell isn't sincere about cleaning up broadcast TV and radio," complains Phil Burress of Citizens for Community Values. Along with leaders from two dozen other family values groups, Burress met with Powell last summer to complain about indecency on the airwaves. "Powell wouldn't give us the time of day and kept looking at his watch," Burress complains. "Now his finger is in the air and he's wondering which way the wind is blowing."

In its ruling against Clear Channel last week, the FCC also took the unprecedented step of ordering its enforcement bureau to investigate whether Infinity Broadcasting, which syndicates Stern and carries his show on 18 stations, also violated indecency rules by airing the same April 9, 2003, program that got Clear Channel in trouble. If so, the FCC fines against Infinity could total $1.5 million.

"The FCC is moving toward a system where the burden of proof is on the broadcasters, even though nobody in the audience filed a complaint," says attorney Robert Corn-Revere, a First Amendment specialist who once served on the staff of former FCC commissioner James Quello.

Broadcasters complain that the FCC has suddenly changed its views on what constitutes offensive language. In its initial defense of Stern, Clear Channel lawyers noted, "Several times in the past, the agency has found no actionably indecent unmistakable reference to various types of sex and other material vastly more explicit than the material contained in" the Stern complaint. They pointed to a parody of a Britney Spears song that Stern aired in 2002, with the lyrics, "I'm pulling out now, I don't want your ... in my mouth. I don't' want to taste you ... I'm not a swallower, I'm not a swallower." The FCC ruled that bit was not indecent.

But the commission last week waved off past examples, ruling: "To the extent that the staff may have erred by determining that the material in those cases was not indecent, those decisions are not binding on the commission." In other words, complain broadcasters, don't go by how we've enforced indecency in the past, go by how we're enforcing the rules at this very politicized moment.

But supporters of the indecency crackdown suggest broadcasters only have themselves to blame for airing "morning zoo" programs that air interviews with strippers and prostitutes and feature raunchy patter and sound effects. "If you break the speed limit every day of your life and you know it's wrong, just because you're getting away with it doesn't make it right," says Burress.

Still, many broadcasters fear the country is on the verge of a new puritanism. Says one radio executive, who requests anonymity out of fear of political retribution: "This is the beginning of a scary misuse of government power to intimidate people."

Recent Stories