Speaking at The Media Institute in Washington, D.C., NAB Joint Board Chairman Philip Lombardo blasted the government's current indecency crackdown, saying "the 'indecency disconnect' in Washington is apparent for all to see."

Lombardo, also CEO of Citadel Communications, first thanked the organization for "being on the front lines defending the First Amendment," adding "we need more groups like The Media Institute to constantly remind us that free speech can never be taken for granted." He then stated "there’s never been more concern among my colleagues with respect to the government’s crackdown on controversial and cutting-edged programming"

"Broadcasters today are living in a state of tremendous uncertainty," Lombardo continued. "The FCC’s inconsistent application of indecency rules – coupled with concern over a small number of what some would call 'tasteless' programs – has prompted unprecedented anxiety at every level of our business."

Barely into the start of his speech, Lombardo was already on fire, pointing out that last year the FCC dropped a record $7.7 million in indecency fines against broadcasters, yet there were no fines against cable and satellite providers. He continued by pointing out that while "indecency regulations are being ratcheted up against local broadcasters, cable giants like Comcast and Time Warner are raking in hundreds of millions a year from pay-per-view, hard core pornography. And just yesterday, The Los Angeles Times reported that Adelphia Cable has reversed course and begun providing Triple X rated porn to cable customers."

"The breadth of this disparate treatment creates a confusion among both broadcasters and consumers," continued Lombardo. "In an era of expanding program diversity, when nearly 85% of households receive local television signals from cable or satellite, is it appropriate for only one medium – broadcasting – to face large fines and threats of license revocation? Does the average cable and satellite customer even differentiate between an over-the-air channel and a cable or satellite channel?"

Lombardo cited "sexually explicit and violence-laden" cable programming such as Sex and the City and The Sopranos as examples shows that target younger demos, yet go untouched by the FCC's indecency regulations. He also added that the satellite radio companies -- XM and Sirius -- "are doing the same by luring Opie and Anthony and Howard Stern away from 'free radio.'"

Lombardo stated that the FCC barely recognizes the goodwill of broadcasters when levying multi-million dollar indecency fines, citing local news, public affairs programming, Amber Alerts, emergency weather warnings and other community related events as examples of positive community involvement.

"Broadcasters take seriously our role as stewards of the airwaves," he said. "Our industry has a proud and unmatched record of public service. We are committed to localism, because we are the only electronic medium that is local."

"Local radio and TV stations generate hundreds of millions annually for charity through radiothons, telethons and other on-air fundraising appeals," said Lombardo. "The FCC may dismiss the money that local stations raise for charity, but I can guarantee you this: the charities themselves don’t dismiss it. Indeed, the charities know that much of their good works would go for naught if not for the specific benefits derived from donated airtime and fundraisers from local stations."

He then used an example of KLKN-TV in Lincoln, Nebraska, which saved many lives last year by covering an outbreak of tornadoes without commercial interruption. "If KLKN had been fined over $1 million for airing Saving Private Ryan, the cash flow of our station would have been wiped out," contended Lombardo. "Simply put, we would not have had the resources or the staff to provide this type of coverage."

"When you view the current media landscape, it raises a number of questions," he continued. "Are policymakers on the verge of killing free-over-the air broadcasting with rules that stifle our ability to compete in today’s multi-channel universe? Should broadcasters be expected to ‘dumb down' much of our programming to avoid fines and/or possible license revocation, thereby eroding our audience and the advertising base that supports our medium? Are activist groups trying to drive broadcasters off the air through Internet campaigns based on complaints from people who never actually hear or watch programs they’re protesting?"

Lombardo started to wrap up his address by stating, "America is a vast country, with community standards that differ region-by-region, state-by-state, and community-by-community. What’s appropriate in New York City may not be considered appropriate to audiences in Salt Lake City. My hope is that policymakers ultimately agree that local broadcasters, serving local citizens, are the best arbiters of program choices and are capable of making those decisions with limited government involvement."

He then ended with contrasting quotes from the late Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell and FCC Chairman Michael Powell.

"Justice Lewis Powell clearly understood the gravity involved in government intrusion into the First Amendment rights of broadcasters," contended Lombardo. "In the famous Pacifica decision, he wrote that the FCC does not have – and I quote – 'unrestricted license to decide what speech, protected in other media, may be banned from the airwaves in order to protect unwilling adults from momentary exposure to it in their homes. The Commission may be expected to proceed cautiously.'"

"Contrast that with Chairman Michael Powell, who last year testified before Congress that the FCC was preparing to 'sharpen our enforcement blade.'"

Lombardo ended his address by saying he would "respectfully submit that it is Justice Powell who had it right."