Where are the REAL Democrats when it comes to FREE SPEECH?!

Sorry for the caps, and sorry if anyone else has posted about this already, but I can't take this. I AM SICK OF THIS. Only 22...yes, that's right, a whopping TWENTY TWO, 22, VENTE-DIAZ (did I get that right?) REAL DEMOCRATS with cajones (may as well keep with the Spanish while I'm on a roll!) voted AGAINST one of the greatest assultes (I gotta be careful because in order to spell assult, you gotta spell "ass" first) on FREEDOM OF SPEECH. 22. IS THIS NOT DISGUESTING?! The remaining "Democrats" who voted YES on this poop, are beyond obscene. Perverse. Warped. So who CARES, they'll just fine Howard Stern off the air, oh whatever. No no no no, GET THE PICTURE PEOPLE. Whatever YOU like...IS NEXT. This IS the way this is headed. I just can't take this anymore. I pay these people's salaries, and they DO NOT do their job. Well, if my congressman voted for this CRAP, and he IS a "D", then guess what? I will seriously vote for whoever is running against him, don't care what party they are. GONE. This is just TOO important. Whores! All but you 22 ARE WHORES. Look in the mirror. Realize it. GET USED TO IT. End of story. Sickening.
Why don't we just go give John Asscrack a gallon or two of kerosene and speed up the BURNING OF THE CONSTITUTION???????????

Gotta go, HOWARD STERN IS ON THE E! ENTERTAINMENT CHANNEL NOW!

Lu Cifer, WHERE ARE THE DEMOCRATS?????????????????????

What the hell are you talking about?

Where ARE they?! Why are they NOT speaking out on this?!?!?!? This is SO obviously an election year pile of crap. I'm SO glad our "leaders" care about SMUT...and not TERRORISM. Idiots.

Lu

which does not guarantee a microphone and a multi million dollar income to people who refuse to abide the terms of their employment.

the stern issue is not freedom of speech. he can say whatever he wishes but he cannot force people to pay him to do so or provide him the venue.

The government will fine them for certain things they say. They will fine them for cursing (what's a curse, why is it bad).

It's a form of control, in my opinion. And it should be abolished. I don't care if the government taxes me, thats fluid, money is a creation of the system anyways, but when they incumber free speech, cmon.

commodity....the airways. the majority of the people have decided by their choice of elected officials to regulate it's use just as the use of highways is regulated.

if you don't like the rules work to get rid of the people who make them.

but this is still not a violation of the constsitutions freedom of speech.

Let's suppose an employee of other than a duly-constituted political organization were permitted (or encouraged) to walk around with a "Clinton Sucks!" T-shirt while on the job. Let's then suppose that another employee were fired for wearing a "Bush Sucks!" T-shirt. All other things being equal, and assuming appropriate access to the judicial system, the employer would be found liable for a Wrongful Discharge, the terminated employee would be awarded damages, and the company would be ordered to make substantive corrections to its policies and practices.

Businesses, operating under a license granted by the public, cannot legitimately operate in a manner contrary to compelling public interests. The principles of equal political time and public service, while seriously atrophied in fascist Amerika, remain as appropriate and equitable criteria with regards to the broadcast media.

A similar test of principle exists regarding "First Amendment Zones" as implemented with regards to (so-called) abortion clinics. I matters not whether activists are pro or con -- all activism is relegated to such zones irregardless of the content of the "speech." When, however, such zones are implemented in a fashion that proffers differing treatment based on the content of the speech, that's a violation of compelling public interests.

I'm assuming there was a decency bill in congress. 22 Dems worthy of the designation voted against it; the remainder being puke-lites?

...and I've already written my Representative, Congressmen, etc. They raised the fine for "airing indecent material" from $27500 per incident to $500,000 per incident. HALF A MILLION DOLLARS. And this is OBVIOUSLY targeting Howard Stern. He's done NOTHING more "indecent" than he's EVER done lately, but now that he's attacking Bush (with REGULARITY I might add... I mean, EVERY five minutes he's SLAUGHTERING Bush and the right, DEMANDING all of his listeners vote him and his cronies OUT in November), they're going for the jugular (sp?). It's sickening, sad, and infuriating. And he realizes EXACTLY why Clear Channel dumped him, and exactly why he's being targeted all of a sudden. And he's educating his listeners about it all. He's got a "required reading" list on his website now, and the first link is entitled "How Bush Stole Florida". So I hope this means he's throwing a couple million votes our way. :)

All this shit started before Stern started speaking truth to power - how quickly you forget the two week outcry over Janet's breast!

If Stern is in fact being targetted for his comments about Bush (which isn't necessarily the case), this bill is just a useful cover - Congress was working on this before he started attacking.

...but keep in mind, Clear Channel up and DROPPED HIS ASS the moment he turned on Bush. Keep in mind, with all of this going on (Janet Fiasco), he didn't even currently have a SINGLE COMPLAINT in front of the FCC. Clear Channel = HUGE Bush contributor. While Stern was cheering on the war, he could do/say WHATEVER he wanted, with no "indecency" charges. Now, he's toned WAY down, BLASTS Bush, and now he's being NAILED. A little TOO convenient.

That's all I'm saying. It was, in no way, motivated by him - it's been in the works before this even came up.

I'm not sure how I feel about that business, anyway. If they had just fined him, it would have been nothing - his engineer wasn't on his game, and so he gets punished. Sounds fair. Clear Channel yanking him - that would be the easiest thing to say was politically motivated. But that doesn't involve the FCC in any way - that's just Clear Channel being their typical prickish selves.

if they wanted to shut down stern they would gone against someone who has more than 6 stations carrying him. Like maybe Infiniy.

...and there is language in the bill that makes it possible for the stations getting fined to make the DJ on the air at the time of the incident pay a sizable chunk of the fine.

bill was targeted at stern is just goofy. Sharing the fine is a negotiated part of his contract, he makes 12-17 million a year.
To a company like Clear Channel or Viacom, $27,500 is about the equivalent of the daily company-wide bill for breakfast danishes and donuts. A fine of that size has zero impact on a company of that size. Therefore, raising the amount of the maximum fine seems quite reasonable to me. And a review of the past three years of FCC fines shows that, even now, the actual fines issued rarely approach the maximum. <snip> http://www.photodude.com/weblog/2004/march/08_dead_man_talking_and_talking_and_talking.shtml

The only thing that’s really new is that his corporate bosses may be weighing the balance sheet differently this time. However, Infinity has been willing to suck down millions in fines, for a guy they pay $12-$17 million a year, as a cost of doing business with their cash cow. They’ve been doing it over a decade, and I see no reason to expect they’ll change.

But if they do, it’s a business decision. And it will be because of penalties over long established law, specific statutes that were written ... and used against Howard ... long before Bush approached the federal level.
There’s nothing new here. <snip>

So, you say, this time will be different, as it will be a huge fine sure to make his corporate bosses quake.

They rarely have before. Howard has cost his employers millions of dollars in FCC fines, over the course of the past 12 years:

1992: “Radio’s Howard Stern racked up $1.7 million in fines in 1992 from the Federal Communications Commission for talking dirty. The comment that led to the FCC’s fine was a syrupy comedy routine involving fantasies about pancake maven Aunt Jemima.”

1995: “The FCC ... decided to fine WBZU in Richmond, formally, WVGO, for something deemed offensive from a broadcast of Howard’s show.”

1997: “He has had a running battle with the Federal Communications Commission over free speech issues. He is currently fighting FCC fines totaling over $1.5 million.”

1997: “Well, this week the Stern hit the fan with a $6000 fine when Howard’s flagship station, WXRK FM, 92.3 K-Rock, was hit with a Notice of Apparent Liability (a fine) for having aired segments of the Stern show that were found to be indecent enough by the FCC to fine WBUZ in Richmond and WEZB in New Orleans both $10,000 late last year.”

1999: “He had a man play the piano with his penis, which resulted in the first of Stern’s many FCC fines for indecency. He also asked porno star Jenna Jamison’s father to identify his daughter’s vagina from a lineup of five vagina photos, which Jamison’s father did. The staff applauded, and a Stern affiliate was fined. While breaking social mores, Stern has cost his parent company, Infinity Broadcasting (a division of CBS), more than $1 million in FCC fines. Technically Infinity’s payouts are ‘donations’ to the U.S. Treasury, something to ensure it can purchase more radio stations. For Infinity Broadcasting, the fines are a small cost of doing business. Stern is its cash cow.
Re-read those last two lines. Infinity feels Howard’s controversial acts and FCC fines ... millions of dollars ... are a cost of doing business, with their “cash cow.” They profit from it.

Obviously, Clear Channel has made a different business decision, perhaps as a result of the sting from a $755,000 fine over another of their “talents.”

:puke:

It's small noncommercial stations. Clear Channel will never pay the $500,000 fine anyway once they work out a deal. But what about a noncommercial station that has an annual budget of 50,000 dollars or less? Fighting a fine like this in court or paying even a settlement will wipe them out. The only places of dissent on radio, except for far and few between, are 'indie' stations and college stations. This type of 'penalty' would crush them into oblivion. All it takes is one slipup or something questionable and then a 'listener' to file a complaint.

I worked in college radio(all volunteer) for 12+ years. The budget was miniscule. Not only does this threaten small station's existence but it forces them to control their programming so they do not offend. Unfortunately the best aspect of indie/college stations is that they are freeform and offer DISSENTING opinions in their public affairs programming and such.

Just some thoughts.


TWL

Look at Tipper Gore and her links to the Parents Resource Music Center, etc...

Look at the voting record. It's obvious. We're in civil rights hell.