Stern F-d in the A.

[TheEschaton]

So, Clearchannel fired Howard Stern today permanently, because the FCC ruled that its half million dollar fine will stand, and that future violations will put Clearchannel's license at risk.

It seems more like 1984 every day.

FCC Has a Big F-Word for Stern, Clear Channel (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=industryNews&storyID=480371 5&section=news)

On a side note, I love Reuters. Those silly Brits come up with amazing headlines.

-TheE-

[Wezas]

Yeah, heard about Clear Channel dropping him last week. I think he was only on 6 clear channel stations. It's almost worth him going to XM if he can have a bit more free speech.

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Said Clear Channel president and CEO John Hogan, "Mr. Stern's show has created a great liability for us and other broadcasters who air it. The Congress and the FCC are even beginning to look at revoking station licenses. That's a risk we're just not willing to take."

So basically the government bullied Clear Channel into getting rid of him, it wasn't their decision. FUCK THE GOVERNMENT, THIS IS CENSORSHIP. Sure it's only Howard Stern now, and nobody cares because he's so "filthy" but this is going to get out of control quickly. Just wait.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by ThisOtherKingdom
So basically the government bullied Clear Channel into getting rid of him, it wasn't their decision. FUCK THE GOVERNMENT, THIS IS CENSORSHIP. Sure it's only Howard Stern now, and nobody cares because he's so "filthy" but this is going to get out of control quickly. Just wait.

Well, I'm glad Stern has finally gotten off of the whole "FCC" thing and has actually had a few minutes of "show" in his show. One thing he keeps mentioning, and I think might be a valid point, is that he was taking off the air 2 days after he stated that he would not be supporting Bush in the upcoming election. For a reminder, Colin Powell's son is the chairman of the FCC.

well when it comes down it it he is being made an example of, Though I disagree with it, his actions did break the law... I have a feeling this is just the start of it all....

[Wezas]

Originally posted by The Edine
well when it comes down it it he is being made an example of, Though I disagree with it, his actions did break the law... I have a feeling this is just the start of it all....

Damn conservatives, right Edine?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Right on, power to the people :) Lets get the lewd and lascivious folks off the air and on pay per view/listen areas where they belong.

Well, like I said I don't have a problem with it, others who wish to bring their children up in a better atmosphere do, so I understand why the laws are there and have to accept it for that.

[Sweets]

How far should someone be let alone before they are stopped? Is there a limit to free speach?

I am a big fan of 'To each his own" but when it's just garbage and starts to infringe on obscene, I say pull it. I want to feel safe my child is not going to turn on a radio and hear that crap when he's only 6. Put it on pay per view. Shock material has it's place. It's not on public radio.


My two cents.

[DeV]

Shock material has its place. That I agree with. Howard may be better suited for cable television.

What the government has led me to believe is this: Freedom of speech has its place. Will they be the ones to decide where and when?

[Tsa`ah]

Don't give me this "6 year old listening" crap. What the fuck is a child doing listening to a program like Stern's for?

I'm a father of two and I am active in my lives of my children. I know what they watch on television and I know what they listen to on the radio. I get sick of "I'm flipping through the stations and there's Stern. How nice with my 5 year old in the back seat." I'm sick of people not using their fucking heads when they have children.

Two things you don't do with a young child sitting next to you.

1. Channel surf
2. Radio surf

If you don't know what's on the next channel or station, why are you risking your child's ears? Think.

No one asked me to have kids, I'm not going to ask them to tone down the language or clean up the visuals because I'm too fucking lazy to be pro-active in protecting my children.

Get off of your asses, know what's on, and stop voting for baby sitters.

[AnticorRifling]

I agree with Tsa'ah 100%

Don't push responibility on others. You don't want to listen, change the channel. You don't want your kid listening, change the channel.

[SiKWiDiT]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
His whole post.

:clap:

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I disagree with Tsa'ah and Anticor 100%. You want to listen to shock jocks and smut, pay for it.

[Sweets]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Don't give me this "6 year old listening" crap. What the fuck is a child doing listening to a program like Stern's for?

I'm a father of two and I am active in my lives of my children. I know what they watch on television and I know what they listen to on the radio. I get sick of "I'm flipping through the stations and there's Stern. How nice with my 5 year old in the back seat." I'm sick of people not using their fucking heads when they have children.

Two things you don't do with a young child sitting next to you.

1. Channel surf
2. Radio surf

If you don't know what's on the next channel or station, why are you risking your child's ears? Think.

No one asked me to have kids, I'm not going to ask them to tone down the language or clean up the visuals because I'm too fucking lazy to be pro-active in protecting my children.

Get off of your asses, know what's on, and stop voting for baby sitters.


I agree with you 100%. Please do not assume I don't actively parent because I don't like crap like that on public channels. It's my opinion. It doesn't equal being a bad parent. I am not pushing responsibility on anybody. I am asking for society to take some responsibility for itself. I am just wondering how far one can go.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
You want to listen to shock jocks and smut, pay for it.

Why? Do you pay for half the porn you view on the internet? No. Do you pay to view this message board (it's been known to be full of bad words)? No.

Why does something that some people consider indecent suddenly mean "Oh, you need to pay for that".

Why don't we just put all the stations that might have objectionable language/content on one end of the radio dial. Say 104+. That way we can have the rap/rock songs with the curse words, we can have free speech for the people who talk, and parents who care what their kids listen to just won't go to that part of the radio spectrum.

Or, we could save millions not changing the frequencies, and keep it the way it was before this whole thing started. You can't say the 7 dirty words on the radio, and leave it at that.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
I disagree with Tsa'ah and Anticor 100%. You want to listen to shock jocks and smut, pay for it.

Why? They clearly have listeners. They DO pay for it by providing ratings which supply advertising dollars just as every other radio show requires.

You can't simply change the rules because you like one radio personality and not another.

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by Skirmisher]

[SiKWiDiT]

Censorship is BAD.

[DeV]

Very bad... Ultimately it's gonna get way worse.

[Wezas]

I find most of what Bill O'reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and most extreme right-wingers say to be indecent. Can we have people have to pay to listen to them, plz?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Because if I'm the best parent in the world... you might not be. Because children are innocent and deserve to be protected from hearing cunt, fuck and shit, in the middle of the day on the playground, because YOU don't give a shit if anyone can tune in.

Why do we need a rule that says "You can say 7 dirty words" at all? Because there will ALWAYS be people like Stern, who push the envelope all the while esposing their freedom of speech. Sorry, that shit doesn't jive when it infringes on my freedom not to hear you.

I think Stern is funny, on occasion. I like Elliot in the Morning here in DC, but I would not want my 8 year old niece listening to it, cause she sure knows how to turn a radio knob.

You can be active in your kids life all you want, but if you can't look away from them for 10 minutes for fear they might channel surf or radio surf, who's babysitting now?

[Tsa`ah]

In taking responsibility we do not pull shows from the airwaves that we do not agree with.

In taking responsibility a judge will say "then don't fucking listen to it." or, "Don't fucking watch it if it offends you."

Just as I am asking, "what the hell is a 6 year old doing listening to Stern?"

The freedom of speech and expression becomes the "freedom to do and say what you want as long as the government says it's ok" when we allow one group of people to determine what is in yours and my best interests.

So what if you didn't like Stern, don't listen to him. Don't like a certain show on TV, don't watch it. If you're easily offended, stay in your house and read an inoffensive book.

Stop pushing your easily offended pompous ass over the fence and onto my yard. I have common sense. I know how to turn the channel and go on with my life.

[DeV]

That goes the same for television, music, public speeches, what about clan marches--do those go into play as well. Your child can see that on the street. Your kid can turn on a tv well before they ever learn to play around with a radio. What about the music YOU as a parent listen to. You can't listen to rock and rap these days without hearing cursing and swear words. They try to block it out on the radio, but you can pretty much use your imagination with what word is intended. Its just a very thin line when it comes to censorship. Whats next..

[Bobmuhthol]

<3 Howie.

[SiKWiDiT]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Because children are innocent and deserve to be protected from hearing cunt, fuck and shit, in the middle of the day on the playground, because YOU don't give a shit if anyone can tune in.

There are worse words spoken on school playgrounds every day.

Most children are not as innocent as you would like to believe.

[Wezas]

Here's an idea for everyone, how bout a V-chip for your car/home stereo? It'll be optional, and you can set it to "G", "PG", "PG-13", "R", etc. If you don't have one, or have it disabled, all the shows/stations come in. If you're a concerned parent, spend a few extra dollars for this chip (to protect your young children) and put it on whatever level you'd like.

Any complaints there?

[Sweets]

It is a fine line when censoring. I just hope we as a society can figure it out and begin to respect everyone's sensibilities whether one agrees with it or not.

I do know this is impossible. I like my fantasy world...please let me have it.:duh:

edited to add: It's a pretty poor representation of society if someone needs to stay in the house with no tv, radio etc playing at all if they do not like obscene and shock value material. That's just an example of the other extreme as opposed to complete government control.

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by Sweets]

[Bobmuhthol]

<<It's a pretty poor representation of society if someone needs to stay in the house with no tv, radio etc playing at all if they do not like obscene and shock value material.>>

It's also a pretty poor representation of happiness when I have to go out of my way to be able to access that same material.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage

Sorry, that shit doesn't jive when it infringes on my freedom not to hear you.

No one made you listen. Turn the station.



I think Stern is funny, on occasion. I like Elliot in the Morning here in DC, but I would not want my 8 year old niece listening to it, cause she sure knows how to turn a radio knob.

You really think your eight year old neice is going to be interested in listening to something like howard stern?



You can be active in your kids life all you want, but if you can't look away from them for 10 minutes for fear they might channel surf or radio surf, who's babysitting now?

And you can cap every outlet in the house to prevent them from puttng something metal inside and put gates in front of every staircase and take the caps off of every burner on the stove so they dont turn it on by mistake and keep latches on every single cabinet in the house to keep them from getting at something inside they shouldnt. You can do that till they turn eighteen and protect them from all the bad things in the world.

Or....you can be a parent who teaches their children to not do certain things beyond simply watching them 24/7.

You don't have to raise your children in a bubble to protect them, a combination of dilligence along WITH education as to what ARE acceptable activities and what are NOT is what will get them through.

Life isnt simple, and kids are harder still.

Lets not dumb down the world for the lowest common denominator here, but instead demand a minimal level of effort and responsibility on the part of parents.

[Weedmage Princess]

I have to say I agree with SHM on this one. I won't go as far as to say Stern's show should be pulled or restricted PPV or something...I just think maybe the timing could change and that would solve a big portion of the problem. No need to have him on in the middle of the morning when anyone can come across his show. But after 9pm? Why not?

An interesting point SHM brought up is "just because I'm a good parent, doesn't mean everyone else is." I brought up this point before about a child having a walkman while waiting for the school bus or something and flipping through the channels and finding Stern's show. (that got met with a lot of semantics--you can't have a radio in school..which isn't always true and not even what I had said but whatever) There are a lot of different factors that have nothing to do with being a good or bad parent that could come into play when things like this have the potential to be easily accessible to all.

Again, I just don't see why Stern needs to be pulled and all these fines need to be issued. Again, a simple time-slot change would fix things fine. He has a big enough following that people would tune in to still listen to his show, and if children too young for his content are still awake and finding his station on the dial at 9:00 at night, well then in that case, yes..there are issues there that are of more concern than Howard Stern being on free radio.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I guess we'll just have to disagree here.

I'm not looking for a police state, and I don't think you are looking for dick sucking on Sesame Street.

I'm all about being a responsible parent and taking care of kids and them growing up safely. Insults from Tsa'ah aside, I wouldn't want anyones freedoms infringed on, but I also thing open airwaves isn't a good thing. I'm not saying the solution is easy, but Stern getting shitcanned is A-OK in my book.

[Bobmuhthol]

Your book sucks.

[Hulkein]

He purposely got dropped so he can start his own radio station. After he got blacked out at half the markets, his goal was to get his own station to say whatever he wants.

The argument which is 'don't like it, turn the station' is about as practical as 'don't like drugs? don't do em', leave em legal though. The things kids hear do damage, as do drugs. No, it's not physical, but it is proven that kids watching and listening to harmful material has adverse affects. Stern is a dirtbag, let him have his FREE SPEECH on a station that isn't floating around on a frequency kids can pick up on any radio.


[Edited on 4-12-2004 by Hulkein]

[Meos]

bull shit what am I goin to listen to when I'm at work in the morning... don and roma?

[Sweets]

I think both Weedmage and Wezas have great ideas. I can lock certain channels on my tv and do. I can also live with shock material going on after 9pm. I don't have to like Howie...but I will respect others right to hear him. I like the comprimise though of a different time. Great idea.

Goes to show you I might be able to have my utopia yet.:D

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
I know what they watch on television and I know what they listen to on the radio.Parents are not omniscient. Unless your children are very young, you're kidding yourself if you think you know everything they see/hear through media.

I found ways to tune in to things my parents didn't want me to see (interestingly enough, one of those things was Howard Stern's show on E!) and I'm a goodie-two-shoes. No matter how good parents are (and mine were/are great) kids will do what they aren't supposed to do. Not having things they aren't supposed to have readily available is a good thing. Is anyone upset that kids can't (legally) buy guns? Alcohol? Porno mags?

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
I don't think you are looking for dick sucking on Sesame Street.

Depends if it was done tastefully.

[Sean]

Its okay when your radio stations start disapearing because they lose major money contributors likes stern you only have yourself to blame. look at what happened to 102.7 in new york after opie and anthony got canned. they've changed formats almost monthly and still can't bring a listening base back.

[Wezas]

I grew up in Northern Virginia - Fairfax County School System being one of the best in the country. Not a bad neighborhood either. Kids don't listen to shock jocks, kids listen to music. Kids listen to other kids at school. Kids listen to their parents.

I learned all the bad words from friends, relatives, and parents. I didn't learn anything from the radio. I didn't have cable, so there were no curse words on the TV.

Kids hear those words all the time. It's the parent's job to teach these kids that those words are bad, and to not use them. Don't take away my rights because you want the government to protect your children from hearing words they're already going to hear elsewhere.

What you forget is it was not censored. ClearChannel was fined for not stopping his actions as they are required to do BY LAW under penalty of fines and\or removal of their broadcasting licensee.
If you are pissed off about all of this Blame the dumb Bitch Janet Jackson its her fault, it was the outcry of the MAJORITY of the American public after her tit was all over broadcast TV. The rule of law is Majority rule with minority rights, that's the way it is, get used to it, Clinton is not in office anymore.
Problem with that, Go out and vote.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Tijay
Its okay when your radio stations start disapearing because they lose major money contributors likes stern you only have yourself to blame. look at what happened to 102.7 in new york after opie and anthony got canned. they've changed formats almost monthly and still can't bring a listening base back.

Off-topic, I didn't like O&A, but I'm glad Ron and Fez are now here in DC. They're hilarious.

[Sean]

The most vocal public isn't always the majority.

[Hulkein]

I think the most vocal are the people bitching about Stern being removed, and yes I agree they are not the majority.

[Warriorbird]

My job has people of various ethnicities, religious backgrounds, and political beliefs. At least 75% were angry about no more Howard Stern.

[Sean]

If your able to take that sample of your workplace based on people actually coming to you and saying that they are angry about it than its not a very large sample.

But my comment was mainly towards edines "liberal" use of the word majority.

[Hulkein]

People might be angry that they can't hear his antics anymore because he can be funny.. but that doesn't mean they don't agree that a lot of what he says doesn't belong on the airwaves.

[TheEschaton]

It all started with the fucking smoking bans, I feel. I don't smoke, but these bans set a legal precedent to say the gov't has a right to control behavior, instead of saying that people are responsible for their own damn selves. Don't like a bar because it's too smoky? Guess what? YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO THE FUCKING BAR. Same for restaurants, same for everything. Smoking sections were good enough.

Hell, all good conservatives should be up in arms. They're all about less gov't control, more individual rights, no? Why the fuck should I have to pay for your inability to control your kids? Whatever the fuck happened to personal responsibility? What stupid fuck decided that shielding our children from everything was the best way to bring them up?

I wasn't shielded from anything when I grew up. There was no Santa Claus at 5, for me. Sex talk happened at 7. Drug talk at 8. And you know what? Asides from a slightly foul mouth, I turned out a-o-fucking-kay.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

Weren't you a drug addict?

From your previous posts, I know that you were. You know how many people are able to quit the addictions you did?

Not many.... bad example in my eyes.

[Hulkein]

PS, if the word addict is too harsh, put it this way. Didn't you do drugs often enough to lead to addictions which could've hurt your life down the road?

And nah, not that Howard Stern is responsible for this, just saying that just because you weren't shielded and turned out fine doesn't mean everyone would.

[Sean]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
I wasn't shielded from anything when I grew up. There was no Santa Claus at 5, for me. Sex talk happened at 7. Drug talk at 8. And you know what? Asides from a slightly foul mouth, I turned out a-o-fucking-kay.

-TheE-

except for that time you were watching the wall...

[TheEschaton]

Drug addictions aside, I don't think I would of overcome it without being shielded from everything (til the drugs).

I know tons of rich suburban kids, sheltered their whole lives, and then, in one instant, where they escape their parents control for 2 minutes, they go out and become cokeheads, and are fucked their whole life.

Me, I knew the situation, and one day, I woke up, and said, "If I want to be somebody, if I wanna go somewhere, I better wake up and pay attention." Alright, that's not exactly what I said, I was just quoting Sister Act II. But you get the point: I wasn't sheltered, thus I could help myself.

-TheE-

[Sweets]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Asides from a slightly foul mouth, I turned out a-o-fucking-kay.

-TheE-

That's a bit subjective. I am sure some would agree you're a-o-fucking-kay is a bit skewed.:saint:

[Artha]

Personally, I'm behind Clear Channel and the Government on this one. I think fines for obscenity are just fine (and unlikely to be abused if it's well defined), if well , and if Clear Channel wants to fire him for costing more than he's making, that's simply a good business decision.

As to the implication that they fired him because he said he wouldn't be supporting Bush, I feel it's just a disgruntled employee trying to stir up controversy before he fades into obscurity.

Originally posted by TheEschaton
It all started with the fucking smoking bans, I feel. I don't smoke, but these bans set a legal precedent to say the gov't has a right to control behavior, instead of saying that people are responsible for their own damn selves.
I agree with you 100% on that


Hell, all good conservatives should be up in arms. They're all about less gov't control, more individual rights, no? Why the fuck should I have to pay for your inability to control your kids?
Seems to be paying for itself right now.

What stupid fuck decided that shielding our children from everything was the best way to bring them up?
would you tell your son how good of a fuck some bird is when he is 12?


I wasn't shielded from anything when I grew up. There was no Santa Claus at 5, for me. Sex talk happened at 7. Drug talk at 8. And you know what? Asides from a slightly foul mouth, I turned out a-o-fucking-kay.
and then there are the parents who are not going to teach their kids things like that, and in the end it will hurt the children.

-TheE- [/quote]

[Sean]

Originally posted by The Edine
[and then there are the parents who are not going to teach their kids things like that, and in the end it will hurt the children.


We don't know that. Just like we don't know the inverse. Every family is different.

[Weedmage Princess]

Or maybe there are just some parents who'd rather wait til they feel it's time to address those issues with their children. Personally, I'm going to wait til mine turns 9 or so..I feel they are more mature to deal with issues of sexuality and things of the like at that age than say 6 or 7. I'd be bloody pissed if someone introduced my child to that content at a younger age. And it wouldn't have jack to do with me being a bad parent.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<I'd be bloody pissed if someone introduced my child to that content at a younger age. And it wouldn't have jack to do with me being a bad parent.>>

That's like saying I have bad parents for being allowed to be exposed to the things I am.

It's just too bad I win and the protected children lose.

[Weedmage Princess]

No Bob, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is I should have the right to talk to my child about those issues when *I* feel it is appropiate. I shouldn't have to worry about my 6 or 7 year old **POSSIBLY** being exposed to it because it's on in the mid morning. That's all.

[Sean]

But aren't you deciding when other people can expose their children to these issues via censorship?

[Weedmage Princess]

I don't think so, because no one is stopping them from sitting down and talking to their children about it. All it's saying is (or actually..all *I* am saying is) I'd rather not have it recklessly flashed all over the place without warning in the middle of the morning or early afternoon.

Howard Stern is hardly Sex Ed. It's more 2am Last Call chatter.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Sweets

edited to add: It's a pretty poor representation of society if someone needs to stay in the house with no tv, radio etc playing at all if they do not like obscene and shock value material. That's just an example of the other extreme as opposed to complete government control.


Some people just spend the duration of their lives looking to be offended by something. I'm simply pointing out that these people should lock themselves in their homes and quit shoving their bland pallet upon the rest of us.


Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
I guess we'll just have to disagree here.

I'm not looking for a police state, and I don't think you are looking for dick sucking on Sesame Street.

I'm all about being a responsible parent and taking care of kids and them growing up safely. Insults from Tsa'ah aside, I wouldn't want anyones freedoms infringed on, but I also thing open airwaves isn't a good thing. I'm not saying the solution is easy, but Stern getting shitcanned is A-OK in my book.

Don't think my intent was to insult anyone here. If you were indirectly insulted or offended, I'm sure there is a book or two out there that you could read.

The suggestion of a time-slot change seems like common sense to me. That solution would have been very affective in curbing most of the complaints.

My problem with Uncle Sam stepping in is simply that I am forced to accept what they deem acceptable materials. Rush offends the hell out of me. I think the man's opinions are obscene and an affront to rational thought. Is he in danger of being pulled off the airwaves? Is he receiving fines?

Obscenity is completely subjective. It is a parent's responsibility to determine what is obscene for their child and take action accordingly. You can site one extraneous circumstance after another but it boils down to not being able to be there every time one of those circumstances pops up. If you, as a parent, have done your job those extraneous will have little to no impact on a child's psyche.

It's not your job to raise my kids, it's not the government's job to raise my kids. That responsibility falls on me and my wife and no one else.

Being a parent doesn't make me dead. I still like to occasionally watch and listen to questionable materials. I just don't do so in the presence of my children.

The question I have to ask is where does it stop? Where is the line drawn? Who's next? Mancow? That 70's show? The Simpson's? Scooby Doo?

When we venture down this road of censorship, we do damage to the society as a whole. We are given lists of artists and songs that can't be played on the radio. Actors, actresses, and dialog that can't be aired on television. Movies that can't be played at theatres. Speakers that are barred from public forums. The list goes on. You may think it an extreme but it has happened before and it looks like it is happening again.

Where does it stop?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Obscenity is completely subjective.Write your congressperson and inform him/her of your definition of obscenity. Otherwise, nothing will change. I recommend having a few other folks join you.

[Warriorbird]

But I'm sure you'd complain if folks couldn't talk about their faith in a public venue. Mmm. Irony.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<But I'm sure you'd complain if folks couldn't talk about their faith in a public venue.>>

I'm for that, as people should stfu.

[Hulkein]

I don't think talking about faith is the same as talking about anal sex or the likes of what he usually talks about.. Mainly because kids won't listen to anything about faith anyway, :D

[Warriorbird]

So... if I don't want my kid listening to Hare Krishnas preaching nonsense or evangelical Christians telling them they'll go to hell, that's one thing... but anything sexual is wrong. Love the double standard, dude.

[Weedmage Princess]

Just curious cause I'm feeling really...alone...here.

Am I the only one who doesn't think talk of Hare Krishna, religion, etc at 9:30 am is the same as talking about:

"So if you're a heterosexual male who's never had anal sex with a man before, call in now..and if you do it on stage in Vegas..let a gay man penetrate you, then we'll pay you $250,000."

...or...

"Jessica Simpson is hot. I think it's hot that she can't read. I just want to **** her."


at the same time? 9:30 in the morning? ...am I alone with this?

Am I the only one who thinks this might be better served on the radio during the night?? :?:

[Bobmuhthol]

There are better things to do than listen to the radio at night.

And I watch it at night when I'm bored.

In the morning != At night.

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Bobmuhthol]

[ThisOtherKingdom]

I find it pretty humorous that Clear Channel fired Stern, but they're still playing the commercials he pre-recorded on the air.

[Ilvane]

The bottom line is, people knew what Howard Sterns show was about, and that he is crass and rude. What is so new?

Just because of the Janet Jackson stunt, we're suddenly "Prude Nation?"

-A

[Tsa`ah]

That is an excellent example of subjectiveness.

I will agree on the point of that material having a better time-slot, but that's not censorship, that's an intelligent observation.

Most shock-jocks do not offend me. Most television content doesn't offend me.

Certain groups are all up in arms over a barely discernable nipple being aired, yet no one is up in arms over an Evangelist being broadcast at 6am every morning that states that "Black people were referred to as mud-men and not at all genetically related to the people in the bible. They can become Christian, but they're not of the same cloth."

There is nothing wrong with a nipple on television. There's nothing wrong with nipples in general. I think the problem with some of these people is that they don't have enough nipples in their life, and that explains much to me.

Talking about swamp ass and anal sex isn't offensive, it's crude and it has its place. Showing people getting burned and hung is very offensive, yet no one bats an eye or worries about children watching the news.

Hello, This is reality. Have we met?

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Is Oprah as offensive as Howard Stern? Decide for yourself. (http://www.howardstern.com/oprah.html)

Perhaps not to you Tsa'ah, But there are many people out there that find it offensive.

Isn't anyone else vomiting uncontrollably from the mere mention of Oprah, tossed salad and rainbow party in the same paragraph?

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
So... if I don't want my kid listening to Hare Krishnas preaching nonsense or evangelical Christians telling them they'll go to hell, that's one thing... but anything sexual is wrong. Love the double standard, dude.

Anything that will attribute to the degredation of morals. Not just sexual stuff in nature. You're stretching here with this analogy. One, no kid is going to listen to someone preach about religion because it's fucking boring, two, name a radio program on the air right now that is doing this. I don't think any even exist. It's not even worth mentioning.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by ThisOtherKingdom
Is Oprah as offensive as Howard Stern? Decide for yourself. (http://www.howardstern.com/oprah.html)

But what people will say is that Oprah is "Educational". Just like how "Love Line" and some of the other "Educational" shows (because there's a doctor there) can use more expressive language for certain body parts & sexual situations.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
But I'm sure you'd complain if folks couldn't talk about their faith in a public venue. Mmm. Irony. If you're talking to me, you should reread what I've said on this topic. /self-centered

[Hulkein]

Shut Oprah down too, I don't give a fuck. I don't give a shit either way, but I do agree with Stern being shut down. It's nothing new here, there are regulations on public radio.

Am I wrong or is it a violation to curse on a CB radio? I am under the impression it is, but I heard that a while ago when messing around with my uncles. Is that censorship? No.. it's the way it is. You can get a point across and be entertaining without using words which are not allowed.. and not allowed for good reason, mind you.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by The Edine
Perhaps not to you Tsa'ah, But there are many people out there that find it offensive.

Find what offensive? Stern?

So what if many people find Stern offensive. Many people find Oprah's stunt offensive. Many people find Rush offensive. Many people find ER offensive. Many people find the president offensive. Many people would find YOU offensive.

Since we can't stop everyone from being offended we should not target those that a minority agree about.

[Edited to add a "not", because not having the not did not make sense]

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Tsa`ah]

[Hulkein]

No one is targetting anyone Tsaah. The FCC regulates EVERYBODY. Stern's show has a longer list of violations with the FCC THEN ANYBODY ELSE.. The people who run his show finally got tired of his bullshit. The shit Oprah pull, ok, say she was fined.. it was probably the first time or so. Obviously no one is going to pull the plug. It's a long list of violations, and the people who run the show said ok buddy, we're done having you break the rules over and over again.

It's no conspiracy, it's actually fairly simple to see why it happened.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Shut Oprah down too, I don't give a fuck. I don't give a shit either way, but I do agree with Stern being shut down. It's nothing new here, there are regulations on public radio.

Am I wrong or is it a violation to curse on a CB radio? I am under the impression it is, but I heard that a while ago when messing around with my uncles. Is that censorship? No.. it's the way it is. You can get a point across and be entertaining without using words which are not allowed.. and not allowed for good reason, mind you.

Hulk....you don't find it ironic that you are taking that stance and I the opposite when if we look back I would venture that you curse a lot more than me on these boards.

[Hulkein]

Not really... I am not here saying that anyone who curses on the radio should get pulled. It's more the usage of the word, not just the four letters in sequence. It's also a lot different here. Youngest person we have here is Bob, and he's not really your run of the mill 13-14 year old. It's also not reaching millions of peoples ears.

Anyway, I did a search for fun, I have about 100 posts with the word fuck in it, you have around 50. Not that big of a difference. I don't really think I curse that often at all.

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Hulkein]

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Oprah was not fined. Clear Channel was just a syndicator of his show. His true employers, Infinity Broadcasting, are sticking by him. Secondly, Howard Stern's show has not changed in the last 20 years, and he hasn't been fined in about 10 years. He hasn't violated anything, they're just cracking down more on what is "indecent" and changing the rules on him because of the whole Janet Jackson incident.

[Sean]

Its a pretty big difference if you consider she has 500 more posts.

[Weedmage Princess]

Haha not me Wezas. I thought Love Line sucked, but it was forever ago that I watched it. It's still on the air? Oprah blows the big one, too.

Off Topic but...where the hell is the pickpocket program damnit?!

[Skirmisher]

Um..plus....i'd love for you to show me how many time I actually USED the word rather than quoting someone else to counter their argument.

Without using your vaunted site search I would be willing to bet its less than ten....if that.

[Hulkein]

It's irrelevent anyway. I don't believe it is in any way the same. It isn't against the rules here, for one. It also isn't viewed by a large amount of people, let alone a large amount of children.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Weedmage Princess
I don't think so, because no one is stopping them from sitting down and talking to their children about it. All it's saying is (or actually..all *I* am saying is) I'd rather not have it recklessly flashed all over the place without warning in the middle of the morning or early afternoon.

Howard Stern is hardly Sex Ed. It's more 2am Last Call chatter.

But your still dictating how other people should raise their children based on your own vision of child raising.

Also drive time is a valuable radio commodity. Moving stern to late night would keep die hard fans but it would also cost them a lot of listeners, like myself who listen mainly during morning commutes.

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Tijay]

Skrim you are being very hostile tonight.

[Skirmisher]

You bring out the best in me.

[Tsa`ah]

First it is Tsa`ah, not Tsaah.

Second, Stern was not fined for using words such as "fuck" or "shit", Stern was fined for bits such as the Sphinkterine and talk of anal sex or sex in general. Stern has been fined for "lewd" language that has been deemed "offensive" by the FCC.

The argument I have been making, no surprise that you missed it, is that what is offensive is subjective to the individual. The FCC has taken it upon them selves to determine what is offensive to all, not some. It's a crock. Just like it's a crock to ban books written by Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain).

Each day we come closer and closer to repeating McCarthyism and those who don't understand history are happy about it.

Edited to add: Love lines was and still is a radio show long before MTV ever got their grubby mits on it. It's good listening.

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Tsa`ah]

[Hulkein]

My keyboard is missing that cute little apostrophe, chief. Don't be such a pussy.

<<Second, Stern was not fined for using words such as "fuck" or "shit", Stern was fined for bits such as the Sphinkterine and talk of anal sex or sex in general. Stern has been fined for "lewd" language that has been deemed "offensive" by the FCC.>>

I know, thus my reasoning that me saying fuck (four words in subsequent fashion) is totally irrelevent to Stern. Any more breaking news sleuth?

I didn't miss anything, I am just not going to accept that because something may be subjective that NOTHING can be barred from going over the airwaves. You can stick by that argument, I don't accept it. Talking about butt fucking at 8:30 in the morning over public airwaves is lewd under any circumstance.

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Hulkein]

[Skirmisher]

Love lines....thats going back aways..no?

Wasnt that the one with Dr Drew? Or was that only after the move to MTV?

[TheEschaton]

Hulkein, it's right next to the 1. To the left. SHIFT is the tilde.


-TheE-

[Hulkein]

I'm aware, the button is broken.

[Tsa`ah]

Stop calling me chief you ass raped piss ant.

I don't give a flying fuck if you accept it. Fucking Oprah was airing Sternesque commentary as early as 9am. Nothing has been done. Stern has been on the air for 20 years and is being pulled from the air.

This isn't an argument about when it's aired. It's a debate about the need to pull him from the air at all.

Saying the word Fuck is a clear violation. There is no argument over that. You may find the rhetoric involved in his show or shows like it offensive, I do not. It's crude sure, offensive ... no. You just further display and prove how subjective this is.

The government has no role in determining what is lewd, crude, offensive and so on. The individual does.

Since this is a nation that takes no responsibility and pushes that role on anyone who has more money, it doesn't surprise me.

[Skirmisher]

The timing of when a radio personality IS rather important as Radio morning drive time is customarily the biggest money maker for many stations.

So telling a station that they can't put someone on in the morning can cost them alot of money.

The thing about it is Tsa'ah, "YOU" do not find it offensive, but others do.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by The Edine
The thing about it is Tsa'ah, "YOU" do not find it offensive, but others do.

EXACTLY THE FUCKING POINT!

God it took you long enough to get it.

Do you honestly think I'm the only one who doesn't? I think there are probably millions that do not find it offensive.

[Sean]

Originally posted by The Edine
The thing about it is Tsa'ah, "YOU" do not find it offensive, but others do.

But isn't that the point? You (as in the gov't) are telling me they can determine what is offensive to ME. You (as in the person who might find this offensive) have the option to change the channel and move on to something you don't find offensive. If you (the gov't again) determine what I can hear and what I can't based on what you consider obscene you give me no option.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Tijay

You (as in the gov't) are telling me they can determine what is offensive to ME.

Cross reference the thread on Ashcroft's war on porn. You know who to vote for to avoid having fundamentalist values shoved down your throats for your own good.

Raven

When it is in a public forum then it becomes something the government must deal with. It is something that has been upheld by the Supreme Court in relation to using four letter words or overall foul language in public. Cities are allowed to pass laws to govern it. The federal government in return is able to do the same thing.

[Rowi]

Hey maybe your children will read this forum!! holy hell, will it be pulled for content also? Oh, wait you prolly dont let your kids read this.......silly me what was I thinking.

[Tsa`ah]

Libraries are public institutions. How long will it be before they start removing objectionable materials?

[Hulkein]

It's two entirely different medians Rowi. This forum and webspace is privately owned, unlike public airwaves.

<<Libraries are public institutions. How long will it be before they start removing objectionable materials?>>

Libraries can regulate by age who checks out a book.. They also usually keep potentially (I agree, it's all subjective) offensive works behind a desk or in a certain section where only older people can access them.

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Hulkein]

[Sean]

Sorry you can't check out that encylopedia it has graphic descriptions of factual information.

[Satira]

You're going to have to put down that Bible. It contains acts of violence, sex, incest, and murder.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Lady Satira
You're going to have to put down that Bible. It contains acts of violence, sex, incest, and murder. Nobody should read the Bible without a) a very good grasp of Jewish history and culture or b) someone else who does.

[Tsa`ah]

And we know librarians are in abundance so there isn't a chance that a minor will ever view materials that may be considered objectionable.

Ooops, we forgot about the breasts in national geographic.

But as usual, you missed the point.

Both a library and radio have a common denominator, they're publicly accessed.

How long will it be before libraries must start culling their stacks in order to appease the FCC?

We fall back to the simple argument of "if you don't like it, change the channel".

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Tsa`ah]

[Rowi]

Originally posted by Hulkein
It's two entirely different medians Rowi. This forum and webspace is privately owned, unlike public airwaves.

<<Libraries are public institutions. How long will it be before they start removing objectionable materials?>>

Libraries can regulate by age who checks out a book.. They also usually keep potentially (I agree, it's all subjective) offensive works behind a desk or in a certain section where only older people can access them.

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Hulkein]


Whole point who cares who owns what. it is "freedom of speech" end of story there are no limits......it is like a union / company contract let them start picking at something it all fades away to nothing soon enough................stern first, then maybe they wont like the way a evangelist talks about the bible then maybe they wont like what the Bible says or any other form of religion.

hmm, no religion in politics.............no politics in my life or my religion no matter how fucked it seems to be, what i feel anyhow.............who cares, jesus doesnt anyone have common sense!!!!


edited for.........Politics = Government

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Rowi]

[Hulkein]

<<But as usual, you missed the point.>>

I understand your point Tsa`ah (I copied and pasted your name in hopes that you don't ruin another clean pair of panties). I think you're missing my point.. I am not against a word being said or a breast being showed in a completely neutral manner. It is when the context of it being used is entirely too lewd for public airwaves or institutions. Here comes the other part of your argument, that the government cannot deem what is too lewd for everyone. Again, I believe that it is necassary to be subjective in this instance. It's not a matter of me missing anything, I just happen to disagree. I hope you understand that not everyone shares your ideals and viewpoints.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Rowi
who cares, jesus doesnt anyone have common sense!!!!

As the patriarch of my family used to say "Common sense isn't so common these days".

[Tsa`ah]

I can respect that you disagree, but this isn't the point.

Agree or no, the government has no business telling me or anyone what we can and can't hear on the radio. It is not their place to determine what is offensive, thus it is not their place to fine Stern for talking about anal sex.

[Scott]

I hear more lewd comments and swear words in 1 hour at the bar, mall, etc. then I would if I sat through a 24 hour listening session of Howard Stern or a 24 hour loop of American History X.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
It is not their place to determine what is offensiveIt's their place to give us security in return for our freedom. Seems reasonable enough to me for them to decide what's offensive. Like I said before, chat with your political representatives if you disagree with their decisions. I know I do. :D

The nice thing about the internet is the shows are not on public forums (airwaves) and there is no problem with stern talking about things there. It is the public part that makes it a issue.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
It's their place to give us security in return for our freedom.

But the security is now in place of the freedom. It also still falls back to what you might consider "security" isn't what I might consider "security." There is no right or wrong answer here. But the people who are saying if you don't like it than vote are just as bad as us saying if you don't like it change the channel. One is no more justified than the other.

[Weedmage Princess]

Originally posted by Tijay

But your still dictating how other people should raise their children based on your own vision of child raising.

Also drive time is a valuable radio commodity. Moving stern to late night would keep die hard fans but it would also cost them a lot of listeners, like myself who listen mainly during morning commutes.

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Tijay] .

Not really Tijay cause just by changing the time slot for Howard Stern or shock jocks in general doesn't impact how one raises their child.

Example: I want to have the birds and bees talk with my kid when he's 9. You want to have it with your kid when she's 7. My requesting that Howard Stern's show be put on the air at 9pm doesn't stop you from teaching your daughter about sex and such at 7 years old.

Also...not that I'd want to take away anyone's right to do this...cause it's their right...but...I certainly hope people aren't teaching their kids about sex via Howard Stern's radio show. That's scary.

[Skirmisher]

I keep going back to my question of what 6,7 or 8 year old is it that finds Howard Stern so entrancing?

I just dont think there is an army of first graders all waiting fingers poised for their parents to turn their back so as to sneak a listen to howard stern unless perhaps they hear their parents listening to him first.

[Weedmage Princess]

Well...I don't think so either, Skirm.

But it's like anything else to kids that's taboo. You know, they hear this man on the radio saying words that mommy and daddy tell them they can't say....they begin to pay attention, and listen.

I know that's how I was as a kid. I was like that and every other little kid I knew was like that too.

Maybe we were all bad seeds?

[Sean]

Originally posted by Weedmage PrincessNot really Tijay cause just by changing the time slot for Howard Stern or shock jocks in general doesn't impact how one raises their child.

Example: I want to have the birds and bees talk with my kid when he's 9. You want to have it with your kid when she's 7. My requesting that Howard Stern's show be put on the air at 9pm doesn't stop you from teaching your daughter about sex and such at 7 years old.

Also...not that I'd want to take away anyone's right to do this...cause it's their right...but...I certainly hope people aren't teaching their kids about sex via Howard Stern's radio show. That's scary.

Even though you already know the answer to this, without rehashing our whole long ass IM I'll just point out that I was refering to 2 different things in my IM that you quoted. 1 was the general concept of censoring shock radio and the 2nd was why I don't think its a viable business solution to move broadcast times.

[Warriorbird]

Tyranny of the minority... and I thought this was what conservatives complained about.

[Sweets]

Originally posted by Weedmage Princess
Just curious cause I'm feeling really...alone...here.

Am I the only one who doesn't think talk of Hare Krishna, religion, etc at 9:30 am is the same as talking about:

"So if you're a heterosexual male who's never had anal sex with a man before, call in now..and if you do it on stage in Vegas..let a gay man penetrate you, then we'll pay you $250,000."

...or...

"Jessica Simpson is hot. I think it's hot that she can't read. I just want to **** her."


at the same time? 9:30 in the morning? ...am I alone with this?

Am I the only one who thinks this might be better served on the radio during the night?? :?:

No Weedmage. You are not alone. I think that you are taking a very openminded stance to the issue as compared to the heavy weight censorship armada some keep refering to. Pushing the show to a later time slot is one of the perfect solutions hard cores can't handle. They want it all....and they want it now. It is apparent to me while you are willing to compromise, others wish only to have their way. It's sad really. They keep preaching "What right does one have to restrict ANYTHING!?" I have never been a fan of Anarchism. Some structure is needed. Pushing Howard to a new time slot is not being hard core censorship.

Of course I am tickled by the irony of the arguments hovering around the absolute censoring by the absolute freedom when a middle ground can be had. Give and take ain't their thing I guess. Neither is using their brains.

Hare Krishna at 9:30 in the morning is no where near Howard. Completely different things that deserve different trains of thought.

I wonder if it's possible?


got rid of a few extra o's and i's


[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Sweets]

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Sweets]

[crazymage]

the simple reason they wont move howard. money, most radio listeners listen on way to work between 6-9 am. They would lose millions in advertising moving him to after 9/10pm. and if they put him on during the commute home, more of your kids would hear him then now.

[Sweets]

Originally posted by crazymage
the simple reason they wont move howard. money, most radio listeners listen on way to work between 6-9 am. They would lose millions in advertising moving him to after 9/10pm. and if they put him on during the commute home, more of your kids would hear him then now.

You have a good point. It's unfortunate really that instead of mulling morality it has become more of a agrument for one's convience in their freedom and the bottom dollar.
I believe in personal freedom. It is a great privledge. I only wish rude wasn't so damn popular these days. Consideration for others seems lost. I guess I am just old fashioned.

[Weedmage Princess]

Originally posted by crazymage
the simple reason they wont move howard. money, most radio listeners listen on way to work between 6-9 am. They would lose millions in advertising moving him to after 9/10pm. and if they put him on during the commute home, more of your kids would hear him then now.

3-6 is the rush hour commute home, I was thinking more along the lines of putting his show on around the 9pm-1am time slot. That would restrict the accessibility for children some..or it should, atleast. I mean, this is what they do with television...more adult content is put on during the evening hours..cause that's when parents are usually home and able to control the environment in which their children are in. (And I know, Tijay, this is where you disagree with me..heh)

But I do agree, pulling Stern off the time slot he's in now is a bad thing financially for the stations as yes, most of your radio listeners tune in during the rush hour commutes. However, if they were to change the times certain content is allowed on the airwaves, I'd think they'd all [radio stations] be on level playing field. I'm not sure if they're going after the "content" or just Stern. If it's the latter, then I'd agree...it's a tad unfair.

[Atlanteax]

Good Riddance to Howard Stern!!

:clap:

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tijay
But the security is now in place of the freedom.I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. We give up our freedom to get the security. We can't have complete freedom and complete security. I doubt very much that it's a minority that's pushing to get Stern off the airwaves. America's a generally uptight nation.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
I doubt very much that it's a minority that's pushing to get Stern off the airwaves. America's a generally uptight nation.

And how many of those people would you say are pushing just because they simply don't like stern? How many actually listen to his broadcast? How many use thier right to change the channel...

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tijay
And how many of those people would you say are pushing just because they simply don't like stern? How many actually listen to his broadcast? How many use thier right to change the channel... Beats me, but from what I recall mob democracy doesn't have to have a solid philosophical footing. ;)

[Tendarian]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Tijay

You (as in the gov't) are telling me they can determine what is offensive to ME.

Cross reference the thread on Ashcroft's war on porn. You know who to vote for to avoid having fundamentalist values shoved down your throats for your own good.

Raven

And you know who to vote for if you want secular values shoved down your throat as well.


How long will it be before libraries must start culling their stacks in order to appease the FCC?

Last time i checked i couldnt check out playboy or hustler at the library. My freedoms are being restricted. They already do this. The question is where to draw the line. Unless you all dont think any line should be drawn? Imagine live executions on NBC primtime and on ABC its Debby does Dallas. Cartoon Network can play huge blocks of anime porn. Thats not the kind of enviroment i want for my kids. I agree with the guy who said make like a cable tv part of the radio(104+)and keep the smutty stuff there. I bet eventually they would come out with a device to restrict those channels then even.

[Tendarian]

Originally posted by Tijay
And how many of those people would you say are pushing just because they simply don't like stern? How many actually listen to his broadcast? How many use thier right to change the channel...

Haha i actually find Stern amusing. They stopped airing his show here a couple years back though. I used to listen around the time his movie came out,dont remember how long ago that was.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Tendarian
Last time i checked i couldnt check out playboy or hustler at the library. My freedoms are being restricted. They already do this. The question is where to draw the line. Unless you all dont think any line should be drawn? Imagine live executions on NBC primtime and on ABC its Debby does Dallas. Cartoon Network can play huge blocks of anime porn. Thats not the kind of enviroment i want for my kids. I agree with the guy who said make like a cable tv part of the radio(104+)and keep the smutty stuff there. I bet eventually they would come out with a device to restrict those channels then even.

I think thats sort of the point though. We accept that certain things are more taboo than others. You may not beable to see a playboy in the library but that certainly doesn't mean you can't find images of a naked woman in a library. Just like we accept swearing is taboo on the radio but determining what is lewd to the individual is a line that I don't think should be FURTHER crossed.

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Tijay]

[Tendarian]

I can agree with most of that. As long as there is a line drawn and it doesnt keep getting pushed back. Everyone always complains about how the conservatives are pushing their "truth" and how evil it is. The other side is pushing their "truth just as hard and when Janet "accidently" bared herself on network tv it made the pendulum swing back toward the conservative side after years of being the other way.

[Rowi]

The First Amendment exists precisely to protect the most offensive and controversial speech from government suppression. The best way to counter obnoxious speech is with more speech. Persuasion, not coercion, is the solution.

McCarthy period, the infamous blacklist ruined lives and careers.
why, not just keep up the thoughts of McCarthy! you people that support any kinda of action to move and suppress speech surprise me.........take a history lesson!! lets bring back the Red Scare" of the early 1920s, thousands were deported for their political views. People dont like something and feel threatened they go off in the wrong direction!

Communication Indecency Act which criminalized the "making available" of "indecent" information to minors, and punished it with 2 years in prison. The statute was declared to violate the first ammendment by the Supreme Court. This is an example of clearly protected speech that was jeopardized by the statute.

The Canadian Government is enforcing a law that prohibits anonymous political speech - including online - Maybe, this is the direction people want to go in?? I hope not.........But once it starts it doesnt stop!

"Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security."

--- Ben Franklin

The ruling class has the schools and press under its thumb. This enables it to sway the emotions of the masses.

--- Albert Einstein

[Hulkein]

I don't think Howard Stern got his reputation for his political views. This isn't going to be the same thing as McCarthyism because it's not dealing with that. No one is censoring people for their political beliefs.

I don't buy that this will be a slippery slope.

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Hulkein]

[Sean]

Originally posted by Tendarian
I can agree with most of that. As long as there is a line drawn and it doesnt keep getting pushed back. Everyone always complains about how the conservatives are pushing their "truth" and how evil it is. The other side is pushing their "truth just as hard and when Janet "accidently" bared herself on network tv it made the pendulum swing back toward the conservative side after years of being the other way.

I could be all for a static line depending on where its drawn. My issue still comes down to this... I'm against airing things like janet jacksons waredrobe malfuction because people tuned into the superbowl weren't expecting to have to be subjected to that. However peoeple who turn into howard stern and similar shock jocks know exactly what they are getting.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally said by Ben Franklin, posted by Rowi
Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security.Ben Franklin thought the Stamp Tax would go over great, too. Guy was brilliant, but he was wrong sometimes too.

Comparing Howard Stern's repression to McCarthyism is in the same category as saying Bush went to war in Iraq because of his father.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Comparing Howard Stern's repression to McCarthyism is in the same category as saying Bush went to war in Iraq because of his father.

It is if you look at strictly as Sterns problem instead of the FCC repressing and imposing their personal moral values on society as a whole.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tijay
It is if you look at strictly as Sterns problem instead of the FCC repressing and imposing their personal moral values on society as a whole. McCarthy went after people who were not Communists, but he called them Communists and got them in trouble anyhow.

It's impossible to deny what Howard Stern did. Broadcasting oneself on every form of media one can find does that to one. Furthermore, Howard Stern isn't anywhere near the threat level of Communism to the status quo. Ooo he's got the mouth of a pre-teen badass. I'd prefer he just get slapped in the face then kicked off 8 channels, or whatever it was.

[Sean]

If I didn't consider challenges to your individual freedoms to be challenges to the status quo then I suppose I'd agree with you.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I don't think Howard Stern got his reputation for his political views. This isn't going to be the same thing as McCarthyism because it's not dealing with that. No one is censoring people for their political beliefs.

I don't buy that this will be a slippery slope.

I suggest you read a bit more about McCarthy and the people and groups that were affected. It wasn't just political targets.