Censorship

[ThisOtherKingdom]

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040225105209990009

Like Howard Stern or not, we need to defend the right to free speech in this country. He should not be banned.

[Artha]

He can still say whatever he wants. He just can't do it to as many people as he used to.

[Betheny]

Dude can do wtfever he damn well pleases... but out of the reach of my kids, thanks. (Not that I have kids. But.... you get what I mean.)

[ThisOtherKingdom]

His intention isn't to entertain your kids. It's the parent's responsibility to monitor their children. Hey, I wasn't allowed to watch Married with Children when I was younger.

[Bobmuhthol]

If only I paid for AOL/cared.

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
If only I paid for AOL/cared.

If only we had that ignore feature.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Hey, I wasn't allowed to watch Married with Children when I was younger.>>

That sucks, I've been watching R movies since I was.. 3?

Along with any TV show accessible to me, which was a lot as I always had most of (if not all) the channels available.

Haha 2 u.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<If only we had that ignore feature.>>

If only you would shut the fuck up and stop quoting me and just responding with an "I hate you" sentence. I'm SOOOOOOO SORRY that you love me so much, you don't need to express it every three seconds. At least when I make fun of someone I'm absolutely unbiased.

[Hulkein]

Howard Stern is overrated. Freedom of Speech goes only until it infringes on my rights, if he's saying stuff he shouldn't be then he should be removed.

[ThisOtherKingdom]

In this instance, it wasn't something that Stern said. A caller used a racial slur and Howard disconnected him. I'm sure his past has a lot to do with this decision, however.

And how exactly can saying something on the radio infringe on your rights?

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by ThisOtherKingdom]

[Betheny]

Yeah, it is a parent's responsibility, but it's also society's responsibility to help, IMHO.

[Ravenstorm]

I totally support every person's right to turn the dial on their radio if they don't like what he says.

I also support their right to permit or forbid their children from listening to it, whichever they decide.

And lastly, I totally support the right of anyone who to call someone a complete idiot if they were listening to Howard Stern and expected there to NOT be something someone would consider offensive.

I don't like him myself. But I find many religious shows much more offensive than I find him and I'm not trying to censor them. I just don't tune in.

Raven

[Artha]

I also support the right of companies to choose how to run themselves (as long as they stay within the law, of course).

Dropping Howard is their choice, they're free to make it.

[Bobmuhthol]

Boo hoo, he was only suspended from what? A dozen stations?

I still get him so I don't mind.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ThisOtherKingdom
Hey, I wasn't allowed to watch Married with Children when I was younger. I wasn't allowed to watch Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or Roseanne. I don't know why those specific two were picked, but yeah. Go parents. :)

[Bobmuhthol]

Prior to getting Adult Swim in my room (I only have basic cable, the other TVs have digital), I was watching Roseanne every fucking night on Nick@Nite and I wanted to stab myself.

<3 Family Guy.

MSPLD RSNN'S NM LLZ R S DMB

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by Bobmuhthol]

[GSLeloo]

To me this goes hand in hand with the Janet Jackson thing. if our society seriously gets that upset over something and thinks we are truly that pathetic that we can't handle seeing a piece of the human anatomy that half of the population have... then just kill us all. Censorship is right in only extreme cases but otherwise we should be allowed to make up our own minds and we all have the ability to turn it off if it offends us.

[Hulkein]

LOL, I love how you all say 'HOW IS THAT INFRINGING ON YOUR RIGHTS' and 'censorship isn't right' yet if you had someone on a radio station saying 'KILL JEWS, KILL *******' you'd have a whole different approach.

If someone is on a public radio wave (Howard Stern) at 5-10 in the Morning (Howard Stern) then he should not be able to say whatever he wants, no one can watch their kid at all times, it isn't entirely inconceivable for a kid to have a walkman on the bus or a radio in his room.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<seeing a piece of the human anatomy that half of the population have>>

Let's say it lasted two seconds. 48 frames. I'm going to send you 48 still pictures of penises. Would you be perfectly fine with that?

Plus she's not hot, that sucks.

Please send all porn to Bobmuhthol@hotmail.com

[GSLeloo]

I'm sorry but a penis is a penis. Even though Bob I'm sure you'd love to think that yours is special.

It is a part of life. And as for the "Kill Jews" comment, that sounds more like he is trying to start an attack against Jews, that is wrong then because he is attempting to do physical harm. But even on VH1 a comedian is allowed to make a racial comment such as "Mel Gibson forgot that Jews run America"

[Bobmuhthol]

<<I'm sorry but a penis is a penis.>>

You're correct, a penis = a penis. Now give me an answer, would you appreciate 48 still frames of a penis or not?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by GSLeloo
It is a part of life. And as for the "Kill Jews" comment, that sounds more like he is trying to start an attack against Jews, that is wrong then because he is attempting to do physical harm. But even on VH1 a comedian is allowed to make a racial comment such as "Mel Gibson forgot that Jews run America" Hey, you know what's weird? They bleep the word "retard" on VH1. :?:

(my puzzlement is they allow racism in a comical sense but not un-PCism in the same)

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<I'm sorry but a penis is a penis.>>

You're correct, a penis = a penis. Now give me an answer, would you appreciate 48 still frames of a penis or not?

To quote George Bush, bring it on.

Raven

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<I'm sorry but a penis is a penis.>>

You're correct, a penis = a penis. Now give me an answer, would you appreciate 48 still frames of a penis or not?

To quote George Bush, bring it on.

Raven

Hee! Raven, as soon as I have recovered from laughing my ass off, I shall surely beat you about the head and shoulders with my Whomping Stick of Ultimate Doom! :D

HarmNone raises a Bailey's to Raven...she lofts a glass with a perfect depiction of a penis on it

[HarmNone]

I watch very little television. Most of the programming is of little interest to me. I exercise the power of the remote control. In the car, I exercise the power of the tuner, or the off button, when there is something being broadcast that I do not wish to hear. CDs and DVDs are under my sole control.

When my children were young and impressionable, there were rules as to what was suitable to watch or listen to, and what was not. Those rules were to be followed. There was a price to pay for breaking them. Oddly enough, there were very few times when punishment was necessary. It worked for me. It will work today.

HarmNone censors for herself

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Exactly, HarmNone. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, there were certain TV shows I was not allowed to watch as a child. Therefore I didn't. While as an adult, watching Married with Children, I don't see how seeing it at that age would have turned me into some perverse human being but my parents made a choice and I stuck by it. It's not that difficult, and I really don't see how "turn the channel if you don't like it" isn't the perfect solution.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Howard Stern is overrated. Freedom of Speech goes only until it infringes on my rights, if he's saying stuff he shouldn't be then he should be removed.

What exactly has he said that has infringed on your rights?

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by ThisOtherKingdom
Exactly, HarmNone. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, there were certain TV shows I was not allowed to watch as a child. Therefore I didn't. While as an adult, watching Married with Children, I don't see how seeing it at that age would have turned me into some perverse human being but my parents made a choice and I stuck by it. It's not that difficult, and I really don't see how "turn the channel if you don't like it" isn't the perfect solution.

Uhh, I don't think anyone is saying that Married With Children shouldn't be on TV. There currently IS censorship on TV. If there were NO censorship then things would go too far and shows much worse then Married with Children would be on.

You're saying 'censorship isn't needed because I turned out fine' when you were raised with censorship, lol.

[GSLeloo]

Bob, I don't care if you showed 40 seconds of a penis. It is part of the human body, we have all seen it, so it's not like it would shock me. Now if they showed 40 seconds of someone having their insides cut out, that I might mind.

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Uhh, I don't think anyone is saying that Married With Children shouldn't be on TV. There currently IS censorship on TV. If there were NO censorship then things would go too far and shows much worse then Married with Children would be on.

You're saying 'censorship isn't needed because I turned out fine' when you were raised with censorship, lol.

Thanks for putting words into my mouth.

First of all, Married with Children was just an example because it was a show I wasn't allowed to watch. Yes, I was raised with censorship. My PARENTS censorship, which is perfectly fine. That's their job, not the government's.

And finally, you've been asked this question twice now but refused to answer. How exactly is what is said on the radio infringing on your RIGHTS?

[Artha]

How is Clear Channel deciding what they'll host and what they won't host infringing on Howard Sterns RIGHTS?

[Valthissa]

one side of the argument

http://www.lileks.com/bleats/

haven't had a chance to read something salient on the other side yet

C/Valthissa

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Originally posted by Artha
How is Clear Channel deciding what they'll host and what they won't host infringing on Howard Sterns RIGHTS?

Were there contracts signed? Did they agree to host it for a certain amount of years? What guideline did the show exactly violate? I don't know the answer to all of those questions, so I can't answer yours. It was a caller using a racial slur that the controvery is over, apparently. The "N word" to be exact. Chappelle's Show uses that word frequently. I do believe, however, that the show should not have been pulled because I believe strongly in freedom of speech.

[Artha]

I think the "N word" thing was just the straw that broke the camel's back, personally.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Artha
How is Clear Channel deciding what they'll host and what they won't host infringing on Howard Sterns RIGHTS?

It doesn't.

[Latrinsorm]

Jon Stewart just dropped an unbleeped F-bomb on tv.

....

giggida giggida giggida WHA?!?!?!?

[Hulkein]

<<First of all, Married with Children was just an example because it was a show I wasn't allowed to watch. Yes, I was raised with censorship. My PARENTS censorship, which is perfectly fine. That's their job, not the government's.>>

Unfortunately not everyone has parents as good as yours, that doesn't mean we have people banging and cursing on TV dumbass. I didn't put any words in your mouth, I just pointed out how stupid what you said was. You tried to make a claim that censorship doesn't matter because YOU weren't allowed to watch a show that was censored to begin with. That's basically the same as me saying here in America 'We don't need drug laws, I grew up and my parents told me to never do drugs, I never did them, I turned out fine.'

<<And finally, you've been asked this question twice now but refused to answer. How exactly is what is said on the radio infringing on your RIGHTS?>>

You've never heard the other end of free speech? It isn't a limitless right there Jefferson, if what you're saying is severely profane etc over public airwaves then it is illegal.


[Edited on 2-27-2004 by Hulkein]

[Nakiro]

So it violates your right to be shielded from severe profanity?

[Hulkein]

What? Re-read some posts, I think you mis-read something.

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Unfortunately not everyone has parents as good as yours, that doesn't mean we have people banging and cursing on TV dumbass.

First of all, we do have that. And there are plenty of warnings beforehand letting you know the content. I shouldn't have to suffer because there are parents out there that are less involved with their kid's lives than they should be.


Originally posted by Hulkein
I didn't put any words in your mouth, I just pointed out how stupid what you said was. You tried to make a claim that censorship doesn't matter because YOU weren't allowed to watch a show that was censored to begin with.

No, I made a claim that it isn't the government's job to decide what is and what is not too profane for me to see. Because there are irresponsible parents out there who's children COULD possible be exposed to it is not my problem. It is also not my problem if it happens to offend YOU. You have complete control over what enters your household or what comes over your radio.


Originally posted by Hulkein
You've never heard the other end of free speech? It isn't a limitless right there Jefferson, if what you're saying is severely profane etc over public airwaves then it is illegal.

It is not illegal. Howard Stern is not in danger of going to jail over this. It is finable. And there is no "other end" of free speech. It's either free or it isn't. Howard Stern should have the right to say whatever he wants. Just as you have the right to not listen. I feel as if MY rights are being violated. When do I get to choose to listen if he is censored and taken off the air?

[Pierat]

This isnt censorship..... if the government intervened it would be cencorship, the FCC fines to his show? thats cencorship, a company refusing to back him anymore? Its just capitolism

[TheEschaton]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Jon Stewart just dropped an unbleeped F-bomb on tv.

....

giggida giggida giggida WHA?!?!?!?

Dude, I was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO gonna make a whole thread out of this.

It was so frickin' hilarious, too, since the show is like, 5 hours tape delayed?

Maybe they thought he said it too quietly to be distinguishable? I bet that's their argument when Colin's son comes a-knocking.

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ThisOtherKingdom
And there is no "other end" of free speech. It's either free or it isn't. Howard Stern should have the right to say whatever he wants.Please, go into a darkened movie theather and yell out fire over and over at the top of your lungs. When you get arrested, make the claim that you have freedom of speech. I'd like to know how far you get.
Originally posted by TheEschaton
I bet that's their argument when Colin's son comes a-knocking. Yeah! Uh.. who?

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Please, go into a darkened movie theather and yell out fire over and over at the top of your lungs. When you get arrested, make the claim that you have freedom of speech. I'd like to know how far you get.

I wouldn't, because I have common sense. And doing that is possibly endangering people's lives with the ensuing stampede, so that should be illegal. No one's lives are in danger if Stern were to say cock or pussy on the air.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ThisOtherKingdom
I wouldn't, because I have common sense. And doing that is possibly endangering people's lives with the ensuing stampede, so that should be illegal. No one's lives are in danger if Stern were to say cock or pussy on the air. No, but the moral fiber of the children is in danger. /Bible belt

[HarmNone]

1) The network has the right to buy out Stern's contract if they wish to do so, just as they have the right to cancel his show if it no longer suits their programming needs. That is true of any show, on any network, at any time; hence, why various shows have been cancelled over the years despite significant public support.

2) Stern has the right to bitch about being cancelled, and to hawk his show to other networks and to cable stations. I am sure he will do so.

3) Now, were the government to step in and ban Howard Stern from appearing on a network, or cable station, that decided to air his show, that would be censorship.

I have no problem with 1) and 2). I have a big problem with 3).

HarmNone

Radio shows like STERN have a 5-8 second delay on what they broadcast, it is his fault for not doing his job to block the word out

[Mint]

Stern lives for controversy it seems to me so he is probably loving all this.

edited to add: I mean the general controversy, not the debate on this board. Unless Stern plays GS and reads about it here...hm I actually have my suspicions about who he plays if he does.


[Edited on 2-27-2004 by Mint]

[Nakiro]

Ding ding.

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by Artha
I also support the right of companies to choose how to run themselves (as long as they stay within the law, of course).

Dropping Howard is their choice, they're free to make it.
Word. "Freedom of speech" means you can say what you want. It doesn't mean I have to pay for it or pay you to say it.

But me, I don't like Stern, I don't listen to him, who the fuck cares.

My mom wouldn't let us watch Speed Racer when we were kids because it was too violent.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Stern is being fined for foul language, Clear Channel is sending a message to its Shock Jocks, that society as a whole is saying clean up your act. We have rules and regulations for radio stations, he broke them.

Where does Freedom of speech come into play?

[Parkbandit]

When the radio show is broadcast to anyone and everyone, then it needs to be regulated. I have kids and there is no way I can control what they listen to when they are not at home. Do I want my 10 year old kid exposed to an in-depth discussion about how to give good oral sex to a dancer? Yes, I listened to Bubba the Love Sponge and he did have topics on his show that were describing such things.

There is an audience for that type of entertainment, but because it's broadcast free to anyone with a radio.. I believe there should be some rules set in place to make sure it is not considered obscene by the general public.

[Hulkein]

<<First of all, we do have that. And there are plenty of warnings beforehand letting you know the content. I shouldn't have to suffer because there are parents out there that are less involved with their kid's lives than they should be. >>

I'm talking about basic TV channels, ABC, NBC, CBS, you know the ones you can pick up with antennaes for free.. Not HBO.


<<When the radio show is broadcast to anyone and everyone, then it needs to be regulated. I have kids and there is no way I can control what they listen to when they are not at home. Do I want my 10 year old kid exposed to an in-depth discussion about how to give good oral sex to a dancer? Yes, I listened to Bubba the Love Sponge and he did have topics on his show that were describing such things.

There is an audience for that type of entertainment, but because it's broadcast free to anyone with a radio.. I believe there should be some rules set in place to make sure it is not considered obscene by the general public.>>

Exactly my point.

[Edited on 2-27-2004 by Hulkein]

[Galleazzo]

That's right! The FCC should force rules on all broadcasters requiring at least one hot babe per TV show to go topless for at least five minutes per half hour.

It's for the good of the public I tell you!

:P

[Weedmage Princess]

I'm glad they're taking a stand. Maybe it's me, I get the feeling that people go to extraneous lengths just because they can. Kind of like that ten year old who swears up a storm when mommy and daddy aren't around. Every other word out of their mouth is a swear, because no one can stop them at that time.

About it being the parent's job to watch what their kids listen to/ watch. This is true, to an extent...however like someone else mentioned, parents cant be everywhere all of the time...Let's say I went to great lengths to regulate the content my child is exposed to, do I suddenly become a bad parent because one day at recess, a classmate turns on a radio and they tune into Howard Stern who is going on about his nationwide search to find a heterosexual man and pay him $250,000 to participate in his show "American Anal" in which this person has to let a gay man....well you get it.

Things DO need to be regulated. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not saying these people should be banned from the airwaves or anything like that...but that there is a time and place for everything. 8am-8pm on the radio wehre it can be easily accessed by any and everyone isn't the time and place.

[ThisOtherKingdom]

I've attended both public and private schools, and electronic devices weren't allowed at either. Not to mention Howard Stern is on in the morning. You can't check your kids belongings for a walkman before he leaves? That doens't require being around them 24/7. You can also ground them if you catch them disobeying you by listening to those programs.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ThisOtherKingdom
I've attended both public and private schools, and electronic devices weren't allowed at either. I went to a private school too, and hats weren't allowed.

This regulation was strictly enforced.

I saw hats.

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Then it doesn't seem like it was strictly enforced.

[Weedmage Princess]

>>Let's say I went to great lengths to regulate the content my child is exposed to, do I suddenly become a bad parent because one day at recess, a classmate turns on a radio <<

That was exactly what I said, even though that comment was made more or less to prove a point...but since you're more or less taking it literally, I have to correct you.

Also, I attended private school as well and went to public school during High School...walkmans weren't allowed on during class, but they weren't prohibited, as in they weren't confiscated just because they were on our person. Also if someone wanted to listen to it in the cafeteria, it wasn't an issue. Also, some people had holes in their schedule (high school) , early gym that sometimes was more like a recess where nothing organized really went on, or of course..class trips where they'd listen to their walkmans on the bus...or even if they took the school bus. Howard Stern is broadcast from 6am-10am I believe...if a kid is catching the bus at 7:20am, well then....

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ThisOtherKingdom
Then it doesn't seem like it was strictly enforced. Or could it be that some kids didn't care?

The answer is yes: some kids didn't care. Mostly because they were hungover pretty much every day and richer than hell, but my point stands.

[Nakiro]

Like your child will never hear the word fuck, shit, ass, cunt, bitch, bastard, cock, tweed, pussy, asshole, fagot, dickhead, shiteater, motherfucker, dipshit, cocksucker, etc.

Lets be realistic. Children will have to grow up sometime. Hearing these things once in awhile isn't going to kill them, or turn them into morally lost individuals. The only thing that really ends up doing that are bad parents.

Maybe you should use these people as an example of what not to tell your kid to do. If your kid hears it, tell them that there are people who have dirty mouths but it isn't polite or right to talk that way to others. Grounding them and sending them to their rooms will only entice them to learn more.

[Weedmage Princess]

True but I'd rather have the chance to explain stuff to my child first than to have them exposed to it before I get a chance to address the issue with them.

I just don't get the need to expose all this stuff to children all the time. Just because "they're eventually going to hear/see it anyway?" That's a pretty sorry excuse. Yes, children are going to hear swear words, hear about/see sex, etc...but is it so bad to want to keep it away from them until they're atleast 10 or 11? Or is your need to be exposed to these things 24/7 so great that a bunch of little six year olds or whatever don't matter. Damn...

[Galleazzo]

I wouldn't want my kid exposed to that shit myself. Yeah, I know she hears it from her friends, but that doesn't mean it has to be on the radio or the TV where she gets the notion it's okay to say those things because the grownups are.

[TheEschaton]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TheEschaton
I bet that's their argument when Colin's son comes a-knocking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah! Uh.. who?


You're seriously telling me that you didn't know that the Bush-appointed head of the FCC is Colin Powell's son, Michael Powell?

It's just one more thing we use in our arsenal, since Michael Powell used to work for a large, corporate media conglomerate, and he now regulates companies which he still has a vested interest in. ;)

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

I've attended both public and private schools, and electronic devices weren't allowed at either. Not to mention Howard Stern is on in the morning. You can't check your kids belongings for a walkman before he leaves? That doens't require being around them 24/7. You can also ground them if you catch them disobeying you by listening to those programs.

Or....and imagine this, ladies and gents.....you can teach your kids why HOWARD STERN IS A FUCKING IDIOT. Ditto for Opie and Anthony, Bubba the Love Sponge, etc, etc, etc. If you don't want them to listen to it, teach them WHY you don't want to listen to it.

Education is what it's all about, not enforcement of a strict do/do not value system. Educate them, and let them make their own fucking choices.

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by TheEschatonYou're seriously telling me that you didn't know that the Bush-appointed head of the FCC is Colin Powell's son, Michael Powell?All I could think of was Colin Quinn, and I was like WTF why would Colin Quinn's kid care about censorship, he can't be more than like 10.

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Originally posted by TheEschatonEducation is what it's all about, not enforcement of a strict do/do not value system. Educate them, and let them make their own fucking choices.


Good point as well.

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Alright, I'd like to preface this by saying I'm a little buzzed at this point. But I've been watching a lot of news today and the Howard Stern situation has been mentioned a few times.

First of all, I agree with the fact that Clear Channel has every right to remove Stern from their programming. What I don't understand is that Stern has been doing the same thing for TWENTY YEARS. And because of the Janet Jackson Super Bowl controversy, they overreacted and pulled Stern off of six of their stations after a caller said a racial slur. The FCC has also started an investigation, and Clear Channel has said they endorsed the fact that the government needs to regulate what can be said on the air.

This is where I find my problem. It should not be the government who decides what we can and cannot listen to. We have every right to not tune into programming we find vulgar, just as companies such as Clear Channel have every right to remove questionable programming. I absolutely agree that the content on Stern's show, as well as many others, are not for children's ears. It's true, you can only protect your children so much from shows such as Howard Stern. I just don't believe that because of that, what I choose to listen to should be affected. Before I start to digress because of alcohol, I'll end this rant here.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
[quote]

Education is what it's all about, not enforcement of a strict do/do not value system. Educate them, and let them make their own fucking choices.

-TheE-

Basically, this is what I was trying to say. People are more concerned about shielding their children from the world than educating them to defend themselves against it.

Also, I think 11 is wishful thinking. Kids are not dumb. They hear/see/find out about things by the time their eight.