Years and years and years ago, I listened to Howard Stern on the radio. He was funny. Really funny.
And then, over a period of months, he shifted emphasis. The material became more raunchy, more of what would come to be called the “Shock Jock” mentality. It annoyed me. He seemed better than this type of material. As if doing real humor was too hard, and he was going for cheap gags about flatulence and breasts. Plus the major problem with shock humor is that you have to keep upping the ante, until it’s all about the gross out rather than anything approaching wit.
So I started listening to other stuff.
It’s now years later and Stern is saying that the show will probably be folding its tent altogether as the Clear Channel dumps it from major markets and the FCC issues bug bucks fines for indecency.
What I’d like to know is this:
When in the intervening twenty-plus years since I last listened to Howard Stern were station selection controls removed from radios?
Have they become overly complicated? Have people lost the ability to manipulate them? Is every radio in the world locked in to the stations carrying his show so that people have no choice but to listen?
I mean, I don’t understand why this isn’t a no-brainer. I don’t think Howard Stern is funny. So I don’t listen to him. What the hëll kind of mentality are we living in where it’s decided that Howard Stern isn’t funny and he must be punished for it or driven off the air or both? This makes zero sense to me. Am I that much smarter, better, niftier than so many others that I just say, “I don’t think that’s funny, I’m not going to listen anymore?” and then do that? I’m unclear on why everyone can’t do that, rather than decide on behalf of those people who *do* like Howard Stern that they shouldn’t be allowed to hear it.
PAD
• 
I’m with you all on this one. Simply because while I think Stern is annoying too and IF I thought it was ok, would ban him. But my dilemma is if it’s ok for someone to decide he’s out then who’s to say they won’t decide something I DO like to listen to is out.
If we let them mess with his playground now, we’ve given the ok for people of his ilk to mess with the opposite side when it’s no longer their time in power. Oh God, a world with Stern in charge of banning what HE deems offensive? I’m gonna be sick.
“It’s sad that Janet Jackson popping out her saggy, National Geographic tit”
Wow. Misogyny, meanness, and probably racism, all in one pithy spew.
Is Howard being forced off the air? No, he can change the content of his show to stay on public airwaves (he’s smart enough to do so and to do so very well) OR he can take his show to paid radio. So is he being censored? No, not at all.
The issue is not “turning the knob thingies” the issue is free and public airwaves. As a parent, I can encourage my children not to listen to garbage, but when they are by themselves, they can listen to things I don’t want them to if garbage is available on free radio. If I don’t buy the pay radio stations, then it isn’t available for them to hear. It’s really that simple. No one is shutting Stearn up. Same should go for free TV IMO.
Off topic a tad: How is a ratings on a comic censorship? I’ve never understood Frank’s insistance that it is. It’s a warning, plain and simple. Nothing worse than paying money for something and discovering it’s stuff you don’t like. It’d be kind of cool to have another rating system on writing quality, too, wouldn’t it?
Sorry Rob S., but that is a HUGE LIE!
The airwaves are NOT “Free and public”.
Free and public means people can CHOOSE what to listen to without people like you censoring them and expecting them to change their content!
So you’re afraid your kids might hear something you don’t agree with? WAH WAH WAH! Welcome to the 21st Century, your kids are going to see and a hear a lot you might not like or agree with, grow up and deal with it. Just before you couldn’t control your urge to have kids doesn’t mean the world has to be dumbed down to your kids level!
If parents like you would actually raise your kids instead of expecting the goverment to do it then you wouldn’t be so terrified that something Howard Stern says might “hurt” them. Or did you rasise you kids to do/emulate everything they see/hear?
Congratulations, you’re officially “Part of The Problem”.
FREEDOM means people can see/hear what THEY choose to, NOT what some small minded religio-fascist says they can!
I see so clearly why so many other countries hate the U.S.A. so much! We scream democracy and freedom so much but our goverment refuse to practice what they preach. America NEVER was a democracy, it’s a representative republic where once a representative is elected, the people lose all control over what happens… And “Freedom”? Forget it, it’s a joke in this country…
America is supposed to be the “Greatest” country in the world, if so, then the world is a really sad, pathetic place…
“The issue is not “turning the knob thingies” the issue is free and public airwaves. As a parent, I can encourage my children not to listen to garbage, but when they are by themselves, they can listen to things I don’t want them to if garbage is available on free radio.”
You know, back in the dark ages of the 70s, when I was a child, my parents didn’t “encourage” me to do or not do anything. They **told** me what I could or could not do and if I got caught doing something they had forbidden, there would be hëll to pay.
I know that’s a foreign concept to parents today: The idea that they should be an enforcer instead of their kid’s best pal, but that’s the job you signed up for when you decided to stop using condoms.
I’ve visited and lived in other countries. I’ve driven on their roads. Every time I drive on our nice highways and byways (of which I am happy to pay taxes for) I’m glad I was born here in US of A. The roads are just ONE reason. Yes the system ain’t perfect, but it’s a hang of alot better then what some other people in this world got.
You know what they say, “If you don’t like it, vote, change it, or GET OUT”.
“Sorry Rob S., but that is a HUGE LIE!
The airwaves are NOT “Free and public”.”
Really? You’re paying to listen to your radio? Would you like to send me a check for the air you breath at the same time you write your check to the radio people?
Believe it or not, I understand what you’re saying. As a parent, it is my job (and if you MUST know, the condom broke) and I like to think I do it well.
The point stands, though. Calling it censorship is the lie. Howard has other avenues for speech available to him. Clear Channel chose to let him go, as is their right. The government did not kick him off the air. Where is the censorship? At last glance, Howard had a couple best-selling books still available on the shelves, a movie still available at Blockbuster, a television show on cable… I’m not seeing the censorship.
It’s censorship because Clear Channel didn’t truly get rid of Stern for any reason other than government pressure.
Corporate censorship should also be banned by the first amendment, but the corporate world has bought and paid for our government so they can get away with it. If you seriously believe that Clear Channel got rid of huge money-maker Stern for any reason other than political, then I’m sorry, but that’s a major blind spot.
FREE is more than just a cost thing, so your facietious argument there is rather silly. And the FCC is trying to get power over cable, satellite TV and satellite radio as well.
Can you start a radio station without the FCC’s permission, even if no one else is using the frequency and your transmissions aren’t interfering with anyone elses? NO! Not very free OR public there is it?
Bummer on the condom, that’s why she should’ve had a diaphram and/or been on the pill…
The irony here is how Stern took others to task for criticizing the Prez and the war in Iraq, when they were exercising THEIR right to freedom of speech.
Karma, says I.
Free to the consumer, Bladestar.
I’m not familiar with the reasons the FCC has for denying bandwidth, to be honest, so I can’t comment there. Content-wise, they should stay out of paid-by-the-consumer anything.
What is corporate censorship? If it is what I think you’re implying, then what? They should have to put out there anything anybody wants? ????
No matter Clear Channel’s fears, the government did not do anything to make them take Stearn off the air. No laws were cast down, no government enforcers were dispatched. The responsibility for CC’s decision is entirely theirs. IF they felt the government was going to make them do something they didn’t want to, they have the right to stand up to it and not cave. To blame the government is just plane silly.
And actually, I thank God every day that the condom broke. 🙂 I like my daughter. And my youngest who arrived despite the pill and my oldest who arrived despite scarring of the uterus. When God says it’s time, buddy, it’s time! 🙂
At least you’re happy with results of the “accidents”. But I don’t believe in any god…
The fear of the fines, and theholding up of license renewals and new licesnes were used to scare Clear Channel, wake up and reasd the signs and read more than just the standard big-media owned newspaper and the network news.
And CC can stand up to fear and intimidation. They didn’t. Their problem.
Broken condom or not, my point still stands: It’s not the government’s job to decide what is and is not appropriate for your kids to watch. It’s yours.
As for the airwaves being free: No they’re not. No one can just start up a radio station and start broadcasting. You need a license from the FCC to do that. In fact, all of your DJs and other on air talent also need individual licenses as well. And these licenses need to be renewed every few years. That costs money and takes time to get. Not only that, but the FCC has the authority to put limits on the number of radio stations you can own in a given market.
The point is, the FCC has allegedly used it’s licensing power to delay and harass stations into changing their content to conform, not to regulatory standards, but to nebulous and shifting standards. Stern said this morning he would love to go to court and get a ruling on whether or not his show is “indecent” but the FCC doesn’t fight you in the court, they fight you be delaying new license applications and renewels until you cave in.
CC is one of the most aggressive companies in terms of acquiring radio stations. I have no doubt that the management of this company sees dumping Stern as a way to curry favor with the FCC in the hopes of greasing the wheels for their new acquisitions.
“Broken condom or not, my point still stands”
I think we should have that put on a t-shirt.
PAD
I can’t believe some of you want to completely control everything your kids are exposed to. My daughter will certainly be exposed to ALL this stuff at one time or another. I hope that she will come to me and we can discuss why something is not appropriate or offensive. In this day and age, if you think you can protect your kids until they leave your house, you are either naive, or your kids will be and get taken advantage of a lot. Howard Stern is not the problem. The direction our country is taking is the problem. I want to decide what I will watch or listen to and let my daughter watch or listen to. I do NOT want the government to lean on the broadcasters to inflict some sort of puritanical religious standard on my entertainment. And I want to be able to let my daughter grow up with the best information about what’s out there, not like some monkey hiding her eyes, ears and mouth.
PS No offens Toby 😉
http://www.cjob.com (I think) is the URL where you folks can find Charles Adler every morning right here from Winnipeg. Charles had been heard often in NYC and sometimes does his show from there when he’s in town. He often has many US guests. The talk is current affairs, sometimes of a local nature, but more often encompassing the wider world, and his Libertarian bent makes for lively and provocative content. Try it. The FCC can’t censor *him*.
Oh yes, and let’s not forget that to paraphrase the sage, “He who controls the media controls the population.” or something like that.
Just gives the concept of freedom a whole new dimension, yup yup.
I’m not sure that public decency is puritanical. Nor is it wrong to control what a child under 10 is exposed to. Teach character before exposure, not the other way around.
I prefer self-censorship to government control. That should be enough. Like it or not, CC practiced self-censorship, yes, to save itself from government censorship, but they retain control that way. At present, they define for themselves what is publicly decent. I see no problem with them looking to that as well as to profits.
And, I doubt I’d buy that tee-shirt, but I’d laugh my head off if I saw it…
“I’m not sure that public decency is puritanical.”
Maybe or maybe not. The question, who decides what is “public decency?” You as a consumer or the same people who paid $750 for a hammer?
“Nor is it wrong to control what a child under 10 is exposed to.”
It’s not wrong, but my right as an adult to view or listen to the entertainment of my choice should not be limited to only things that are appropriate for your kid.
“Teach character before exposure, not the other way around.”
Exactly true, but teaching character and controlling exposure are both you job, Mr. Broken Condom, not mine and not the government’s.
T-shirts should be available soon.
Never have been a big fan of Stern’s, although I think he’s a BRILLIANT showman, up there with Hope and Barnum and all the others who escape me right now. Problem is, what started as pushing-the-envelope humor has spawned a whole bunch of mediocre-at-the-most-generous imitators. Now I’ve learned one thing. Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery but it makes your act OLD real fast. All the neoSterns out there just want to appeal to the LCD, get their names known, and be able to stand around later saying “Remember when we did x,y, and z?” Of course, no one does, because to be recognized, you can’t be an imitator, you have to be an INNOVATOR. (sorry if I spelled that wrong) Now, the problem with being an innovator is that you will ALWAYS have people saying “You can’t do that!” Y’know, like the people who knew better around Kitty Hawk until a 747 knocked their hats off. This isn’t about censorship, it’s not about controlling what the media puts out, it’s about a few well-intentioned types saying “Hey, shouldn’t we do SOMETHING?” and all the politicos vying to keep their jobs saying “Hey, people want us to do THIS!” and end up blowing something WAAAAAAAAAAAY out of proportion to either distract people from the real problems that aren’t getting solved or (and I REALLY hope this isn’t it) to just respond with a bunch of buzzwords. 20 years from now, when it all starts up again, people are going to pull all these events out of their hats on both sides and distort them ALL over again. Or maybe I’m just getting cynical in my old age.
None taken, Karen.
Monkeys
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I never advocated government control, but self control.
I think the free (to consumer) airwaves should be fairly clean in nature. Self-policing is the key. If individuals won’t do it, the corporations putting them on the air should. Creative people can make even G rated stuff entertaining.
WRONG ANSWER!! BZZZTT!
IT IS NOT THE REST OIF THE WORLD’S RESPONSIBILITY TO RAISE YOUR KIDS!!!
AND IF YOU’D RAISE THEM RIGHT IT WOULDN’T MATTER WHAT THEY SEE/HEAR, THEY’D UNDERSTAND HOW TO DEAL WITH IT!!
I am done with you.
Okay, so you don’t want government control (I agree)
You don’t want self-control.
You want to be out of control?
Dude, free speech comes part and parcel with responsibility. I don’t expect you to say just what I want you to say, I expect you to consider the power of words, the affect of your speech, and adjust accordingly. The person who allows their only guide to be what makes them money is a loser. Pick an appropriate forum and do your thing. Would you take a whiz on the side of a busy road? I’d like to think you’d have the decency to do it where it belongs and not where it doesn’t.
And what the HÊLL gives you the right to decide what someone can and can’t say?
The radio has two special features, a way to turn it off, and a way to change the channel!
You have no right to tell others what they can and can’t say!
All you have is the right to turn off YOUR radio or cahnge the station on YOUR radio!
You are totally clueless
I hope you kids have a better authority figure in their lives than you…
You are not reading a single thing I’ve written.
I DON’T want to control what you say. Where in the world do get that I do? I want YOU to control what you’re saying. I want YOU to consider the affect of YOUR words and EACH INDIVIDUAL to consider the affects of THEIR words.
Man, I know I’m writing English. Get your head out of your own agenda and recognize a call to responsibility.
You have advocated government mandated censorship of the airwaves at every turn in the discussion.
I think its you that isn’t reading a word you type…
Why should I contrrol what I’m saying for you?
WHY???
Because of your kids?
Grow up! You’re kids are going to see alot that offends you! And there ain’t SQUAT you can do about it!
If you are such a pathetic and ineffectual parent that your kids are going to go bad because they hear someone talk about sex (or even worse VIOLENCE!!!) on the radio, then it is YOU who are the failure and needs to control yourself and your sexual urges.
No one should be expected to censor themselves on behalf of YOUR children!
If you’d raise them properly you wouldn’t be afraid of the real world that out there “corrupting” them. Hey get plenty of corruption at home it seems…
Just for the record, Bladestar, I just went back and reread Rob’s posts and I didn’t notice him advocating government mandated censorship every step of the way. What I got out of it was that he thinks we should all be aware of the fact that we don’t live in a vacuum, there are other people and things in this world aside from our individual selves, and we should keep that in mind when we do things publicly. It doesn’t mean neccessarily being Mr. PC all the time, or even being G rated everywhere you go, just be considerate of those around you, especially if you want them to be considerate of what you do/say/like/whatever.
People SHOULD be good parents to their children, and if there’s something on tv/radio/in the movies they don’t like, they SHOULD avoid it/change the channel and so forth. But people also SHOULD be considerate of others and think about more than themselves.
Monkeys.
But who wins?
By your logic NO ONE should EVER say anything!
There are over 3 billion people on the planet, everything you can do/say is going to offend SOMEONE, it’s unavoidable.
If you find something offense, turn the channel and don’t listen, but do not expect someone else to change what they say because you might be offended. It works both ways. Just because you may find Howard Stern offensive, then don’t listen to him, but don’t you dare try to censor him.
I find Rush Limbaugh an offensive turd, so guess what? I don’t listen to his show! I don’t try to get him thrown off the air, I ignore him.
People need to mind their own business and quit forcing their predjudices on others.
I advocate freedom, and I’ll take freedom over PC limitiations any day.
No, Bladestar — it’s not that “NO ONE should EVER say anything.”
It’s that people should be mindful and accepting of the likely consequences of their words.
I don’t have a problem acknowledging that some of my opinions may offend people — but I in turn realize that many opinions are best expressed in certain times and places and not others.
The aspects of my humor that can get a little risque are things I tend not to bring into my classroom filled solely with high-school girls. It’s a bit inappropriate.
My general political sensibilities are ones I’ll defend anywhere — but if I’m talking to someone who I know would be offended by certain turns of phrase, I’ll phrase it in other ways.
It’s called politeness.
If there’s a point that absolutely needs making, I’ll make it and not worry about causing offense — as I believe some BBC head said once in response to a worried question, “There are some people we WANT to offend.” But not causing **needful** offense is a social skill of great worth.
You might want to investigate it further.
TWL
Not my job to worry about your, or anyone else’s feelings.
Go ahead and be dishonest with others in the name of “politeness”.
Censorship was the topic, but somehow you’ve ignored that and tried to call it manners.
We started talking about Howard Stern and the unconstitutional attacks on the first amendment and the eveil that this country is under assault by, but you’re more worried about “feelings” that the bigger issues.
Reading the last few posts, I would have to go with Bladestar on this. There’s lots of stuff out there that I find to be offensive or just plain stupid. My actions when I come across it on the dial or elsewhere? Change the channel or leave it and move on to something better. People have lots of choices if they want them. One of those choices should not be taking my choices away. And parents, while it’s a tough job, still need to do the job of parenting their kids and not trying to parent the rest of us.
Well, I do agree with you on several things, Bladestar. I agree that no one has the right to tell anyone else what they can or can’t watch/listen to and those who are offended by certain things should turn the dial. I also agree that this conversation has taken a turn from censorship to politeness in expressing one’s views. But, here’s the deal with the latter: You don’t have to care if you offend someone or hurt their feelings, unless you want them to actually listen to what you have to say and take you seriously.
As far as censorship, there’s a difference between someone stepping in and saying “you can’t watch this, or you can’t air this” and a broadcasting company/publisher saying “I’m not going to put my name behind this”. It’s not censorship for a company to decide they don’t want to air certain things in their name. It is censorship if they try to stop it from being aired anywhere. There is a difference, and it’s not all just censorship. In the Stern case, it would appear (but I don’t have all the details, and I think what Stern/CC/FCC say should be taken with a grain of salt, because they each have biases and vested interests in painting the situation a certain way) that CC is bowing down to pressure from the FCC, which would sort of be indirect censorship, but still censorship.
Monkeys.
Bladestar, with all due respect … you’re a twit.
I am well aware that the original topic was Stern and censorship. If you look back, you’ll see that my initial response to Peter’s post (made well before you started strutting around in this thread, so you may have missed it) dealt with both of those topics and agreed with you that censorship is a lousy idea.
I am also aware, apparently unlike you, that **topics evolve over time**. I am also able to read Rob’s posts and am thus aware that his topic is NOT currently censorship or Howard Stern, except apparently in whatever universe you’re paying rent in.
I’m not proposing yanking anyone or anything. I’m agreeing with the idea that individuals should be aware of the effect their words can have, and should as a general rule try not to **needlessly** offend people.
If you’re deliberately out to offend people, go ahead, more power to ya. I’m not proposing changing anything about your ability or your right to do so.
I’m just saying it’s not the way I choose to live **my** life.
Let me repeat this in words of as few syllables as possible:
I am not advocating censorship in any form, including self-censorship.
I am advocating awareness of one’s own words.
As for your claiming I’m simply being “dishonest in the name of politeness” … feel free to ask any of my friends, family, or co-workers how often they find me dishonest. I’m willing to bet you’ll get a really tiny percentage … unless, of course, you take the same attack-dog tone with them you’ve been doing with everyone here, in which case you’ll likely get a really large percentage of people sticking a two-by-four up your ášš sideways.
How’s that for honesty?
TWL
Goody gumdrops for you Timmy, but I don’t care, I’ve never met you and never will.
We’re talking about two different topics. Enjoy your own little world.
ANd calling me a twit, what did PAD say about personal attacks?
But don’t worry, I won’t whining to him complaining like your ilk does.
Just FYI: I don’t recall “whining” to Peter complaining about anyone here, actually. I generally don’t work behind other people’s backs.
Glad to see you’re recognizing that Rob’s topic and what you’re calling Rob’s topic are two different beasts, though.
TWL
Toby and Tim,
Thank you. You get it.
Bladestar,
It’s been… interesting.
Toby, Tim and Rob,
You don’t get it.
Your position is fine for day in and day out life. I do the same thing. I really watch my mouth around my friend’s three year old. Although, mostly because I’m afraid of being killed by an enraged Scottswoman. But the prime topic here aint you and me or true choice.
Again, the FCC has stated that they want to up their fines and even go after the license of stations or companies if the FCC doesn’t like what’s being broadcast. But the FCC also won’t give a full idea of what’s offensive to them. They never have. They give out a list of general guidelines but it’s one of those “know it when we see it” deals in many cases. Hëll, a couple of the things that got Bubba in trouble in the last few years aren’t even in the FCC guidelines.
What we have now is, to use the example I used before, the FCC putting a gun to the head of broadcasters and companies and “asking” them to rethink what they want to give the public. A public, by the by, that has made these guys number one in almost every market that they’re in. This is not a bunch of companies just all of a sudden deciding that they want to change their public face for the heck of it.
If you say that I can broadcast something but you’ll come after me with the full force of the Fed Gov’t behind you to shut me down or destroy me; that’s no different then saying that I’m not allowed to say or broadcast something to begin with. The end result is the same either way. Call it censorship or not but it’s still the same thing.
Gotta go to work. Later.
See? Jerry gets it.
Well worded and expressed Jerry.
Jerry,
I agree with pretty much everything you say except that you claim it means we “don’t get it.”
I’ve been talking about day-to-day choices. I’m still talking about day-to-day choices.
I completely agree with you that when the consequences of words include the possibility of being shut down, the situation changes from awareness to coercion. I’m not supporting that at all, and I’m a bit taken aback that you think I am.
Frankly, the main reason I leaped in here is that I saw Rob getting chewed up and spit out by people who wouldn’t recognize the concept of civility if it danced naked in front of them. Saying “people should be aware of how their words are perceived” is not remotely the same as saying “and thus some things shouldn’t be said.” As I’ve said many times before, it’s causing **needless** offense that I think is short-sighted and worthy of criticism.
I’m not happy with the FCC or with ClearChannel in the slightest, and I think I’ve been reasonably clear on that point in the past. No offense, Jerry, but I think you’re attributing opinions to me that I don’t actually hold.
I think the outcry that the Dixie Chicks ran into last summer was absurd and inappropriate, I think the FCC going all aflutter about the Super Bowl is a distraction from eight zillion important issues facing the country, and I oppose the Stern firing. How exactly does that mean I “don’t get it”?
Sheesh.
TWL
Jerry, I don’t get why you think I don’t get it.
Perhaps I was unclear before, but I “get” everything you said. My only additional point was about day to day individual life and that one shouldn’t offend “just cuz”. I’m not telling anyone they can’t, I’m just saying that if you want others to listen and take you seriously (general you, not you you), you should hold back on the potentially offensive stuff unless it serves a point and can create an impact. Like the word fûçk. If every other word out of your mouth is fûçk, when you’re describing something and you add emphasis by saying fûçk, it has lost it’s effectiveness. Again, not saying anyone shouldn’t say it.
As far as censorship goes, I agree with you, especially about the FCC threatening broadcast companies the way they do.
Hopefully you get that I get it, but if you don’t, well, oh well.
Monkeys.
It appears that Clear Channel Communications may be at it again.
A local radio station here in Denver, KBPI, had their morning radio show and the show’s DJ’s yanked from the air without warning yesterday afternoon.
The show was called The Locker Room, my wife and another coworker listened to it every morning, but these guys were nothing like Howard Stern.
Nobody knows for sure what’s going on yet, but all their stuff has been taken off the KBPI website as well, so it does not appear as if the show (or the DJ’s) is coming back.
Disturbing, to say the least.
I listen to Stern for his perspective on a variety of issues from entertainment to politics. When the farting contests start I change the station (not because I’m offended, just bored). It’s a shame I may be deprived of his perspective because the government is afraid that the average American is too stupid to change a radio station. And please don’t give me the “protecting children” argument. I’ve got two kids of my own and 18 nieces and nephews and I’ve never once heard any of them talking about Howard Stern or any other DJ or talk radio host. The FCC is probably just trying to distract us from the fact that they can’t do anything about policing the Internet (not that I’m trying to give them any ideas).
“Here’s a suggestion: There are these things called books. Crack one of those open for your entertainment.”
“When the show became the soap opera of Stern and his life, the show got dull.”
Fogive me if somone else covered this and that I didn’t read this postings responses until now but I think that some other issues are being missed here. I admit that I have been a loyal Stern listener for 20 years and that yes the show varries in it’s level of entertainment but the above quotes miss some important things.
Read a book. Excellent idea except book have also suffered from censorship. Several books that we now consider recommended reading were “banned” when first published. One of Stern’s books suffered from censorship in that some stores refused to carry it (again, it’s the right of the establishment to do so). One father even sued a bookstore due to the books placement where children could see it, open it and view it’s contents). So books have the potential to suffer as broadcasters are. They have before and could do so again.
Point 2. Howards recent diatribes are reminiscent on Lenny Bruce who was also hounded by the government for the type of material he presented in his nightclub act. A nightclub is a place where people over a specific age considered to be adulthood go to be entertained. The government decided that people who paid money to be entertained shouldn’t have to hear his filth. Lenny saw the hypocracy in his persecution and his nightclub act became a reading of the transcripts of his court cases and tried to show the audience what was being done to him was wrong and why. That is what Howard is doing at this time. Funny or not, if he doesn’t defend himself, no one else will. If he is thrown off the air newspapers will report the reason as his raunchy brand of entertainment. Howard is only doing what Lenny Bruce did. What anyone would do in trying to defend themselves.
Point 3. As Kathleen David said, Fallen Angel bears a mature readers label that would not be there for other writers who have established themselves for the type of material that they write. Howard was fined for the use of a word describing the male sexual organ. The FCC states that it was the use of the word that caused the fine to be issued. It is also said that Howard cannot say these things because of the time of day in which he broacasts. Children MAY hear what he is saying. Children are not in school until age 5 and even then may be home for holidays or absent from school due to illness where they can hear Oprah use the same words. It is supposedly alright for Oprah to do so because she has a medical person on her show and she’s using the words to educate viewers. Websters does NOT have a Stern dictionay and an Oprah dictionary. The word still has the same definetion and looks the same as well as performs the exact same funtions no matter who says it. You still have to explain it when your child asks what that is no mater if they hear it from Howard, Oprah or a child on a playground. IF the FCC is going to level fines, it HAS to be accross the board or it is not fair. States regulate speed limits but you would be up in arms if your neighbor never got a ticket exceeding the speed limit by 20mph and you were constantly ticketed for being 2mph over the limit.
I also admit that I thought Gore was going to be more pro censorship than Bush seeing as how Tipper headed the PMRC (parents music resource center) which prompted record labeling. I’m sorry I was (aparently) wrong.
Books I can read pretty much whenever I want (except while driving or working) and I do. Howard’s perfect for the long dirve to work, and when he gets boring or on a topic I couldn’t care less about, I change the channel. Listening to the radio and reading are NOT and either/or. You can listen to radio and read too, not simultaneously, but your implication that if you listen to the radio you don’t read is intensely ignorant.
Good point on the banned books. Even the classics like Huck Finn have been banned in some schools, and kids books like the Harry Potter series have been under attack since day 1…
As far as kids too young for school or out of school for whatever reason, where are their parents? If the parents feel their kids cannot handle hearing Howard/Bubba/, why are they letting their kids listen? Kids that young should never be unsupervised, “Latchkey” kids are no excuse/exception.
The only way Gore and Bush differed on censorship is the ideology behind it.
Gore supported censorship on a more “politically correct” grounds.
Bush is just like the Taliban and the Ayatollah, he believes his religion must be forced on everyone else.
Censorship on either reason is wrong, butit’s still censorship, regardless of the philosophy behind it.
Books I can read pretty much whenever I want (except while driving or working) and I do. Howard’s perfect for the long dirve to work, and when he gets boring or on a topic I couldn’t care less about, I change the channel. Listening to the radio and reading are NOT and either/or. You can listen to radio and read too, not simultaneously, but your implication that if you listen to the radio you don’t read is intensely ignorant.
Good point on the banned books. Even the classics like Huck Finn have been banned in some schools, and kids books like the Harry Potter series have been under attack since day 1…
As far as kids too young for school or out of school for whatever reason, where are their parents? If the parents feel their kids cannot handle hearing Howard/Bubba/, why are they letting their kids listen? Kids that young should never be unsupervised, “Latchkey” kids are no excuse/exception.
The only way Gore and Bush differed on censorship is the ideology behind it.
Gore supported censorship on a more “politically correct” grounds.
Bush is just like the Taliban and the Ayatollah, he believes his religion must be forced on everyone else.
Censorship on either reason is wrong, butit’s still censorship, regardless of the philosophy behind it.
Sorry about the double-post.
Mozilla wasn’t acknowledging the the sending…
Stern isn’t being “driven off the air.” Stations and distributors are perfectly free to dump any show they choose, for whatever reason. If Stern was making them enough money, they wouldn’t dump him. And the FCC won’t fine anyone who doesn’t break the law on the air, unless I’m misunderstanding something. So unless Stern is for some reason unable to comply with the indecency laws, I don’t see the issue.
And Chris, you aren’t paying attention.
Stern has been trying for years to get the FCC to actually define some standards. And he’s tried to get the fines into court, but the FCC won;t let the cases/fines get to court. They harass and penalize the stations license holders with threats and obstruction. THe FCC is an unelected body of scumbags and they don’t allow for due process. Read more about the subject that just what is posted here….