Hey FCC, fuck you!

While policing whatever counts as "indecent" to hypocritical puritan tastes and meeting diversionary tactics from media Goliath constriction and abandonment of their civil duties of informing citizens of basic civil issues that impact their lives (look a kitty in a tree!) the Powell run FCC as hot their sweet spot.

Hey Powell, you know what's indecent? Pro-war rallies designed by Bush buddy run Clear Channel Communication. THAT, you wonk, is more resonant an indecency than the occasional rock star "fuck" or boob shot.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

he was tempting a jewelry artisan to strip naked in exchange for the chance for him to give her business four plugs on his show.

my question is does he do that with male business owners? no...only women.

and this is the pile of scum you want me to defend?

yeah right

but in the one instance you can change the channel -- in the other you can't.
and trust me -- there is much to despair about american mass media taste -- less viewing/listening choice doesn't mean the culture will automatically give rise to another eugene o'neil or tennessee williams.

I wholeheartedly agree.The indecency is the homogenization of culture and the choking off of diversity.


It using the media as a mere commodity (like Gucci purses and Ugg boots) and not a public service (at least of which a shred was somewhat detectable until 20 or so years ago)

you got to be kidding.

when i was a kid there were three channels on the tv. now there are channels devoted to almost every subject immaginable.

when i was a kid there was no jchinese/mexican/thi/foods in the grocery. now there are thousands of diverse ethnic products.

BETV, telemundo, farsi radio stations. diversity is thriving because of it's commercial value.

chocking of diversity...yeah riiiight.

500 channels of differing opinions? Uh not quite.

The vast majority of the media we get on cable is pro-market liberalisation fodder. Were is the mention of Unions (when not snearing) Where is the mention of the environment (when not Earth Day or on the Discovery channel)?

Don't confuse quatity for quality.

on edit - spelling

exucuse me for responding to what you say rather than whatyou meant to say.

so...how does this relate to howard again? is he a big union voice?
is he championing the environment now?

no..he is bribing women to take off their clothes. and i am supposed to support him in order to save the planet?

....causes his freedom of speech is not worth protecting. The political correctness you spout is as offensive to me as the worst smut. However as Thomas Paine said "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

but if you read down thread, you'll understand why i ask. are you a big rush defender?

edited to add easy peasy linkage:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1257521&mesg_id=1260909

what you describe as my position, that only those who support liberal causes deserve defending, is soooooo not my positon. but it sure seems to be the position of some people here.

Limbaugh's medical records which has nothing to do with Howard Stern. Trying to change the subject is the oldest trick in the book.

Excuse me for not responding to your tirade against Stern and focusing on the larger issue of corporate choke-hold when a voice displeases it.

You have issues with willing women taking of their clothes to get publicity, understood...still not the point.

the issue here is not just "Howard Stern." The issue is The First Amendment.

he just won't get paid for it. nothing in freedom of speech demands people pay you for speaking.

There IS a freedom of speech issue in the government driving commentators off-the-air through heavy fines.

Whatever your position on whether FCC fines should be increased, it still affects free speech.

People against increasing FCC fines should tell their Senators.

Toll free number for all Senate offices:
1-800-839-5276

i thought he was a shock jock. that's what he used to be before he decide to jump on bush to try and get people to defend his butt for doing the stuff that made him rich.
please...he's been on the air for decades and three weeks of bushbashing makes him a commentator?

BWAWAHAHAHAhahaaaaa

Howard Stern doesn't call himself a "shock jock" and I've never called him that.

If you don't like "commentator," how about "comedian?"

and until recently, i don't think he would be viewed as a political humourist like carlin or franken.

bottom line is i find him an exploter, of the disabled of women of poor people. and now he is trying to exploit the left's hatred of bush to save his ass.

like i said before. if youc hoose to defend him on that ground, go for it but don't be surprised when he moves to satellite radio with another obscene (moneywise) contract based on all the ratings and support ya'll are bring him, that he drops the bush bashing a helluva lot faster than that woman dropped her panties.

it's a schtick. he is apolitical in his core and using you, just liike he uses everyone. you think he's gonna be willing to turn away from all those hypocritical, pervert pubbies who have been tittering their way to work with one hand on the wheel while amusing themselves with his crap all these years?

once the ink is dry on his next contract and he is safe from government fines you will see the end of the political content of his show and the end of his "commentator" status as well.

from watching one show on E!?

anytime i've ever seen it, it was the same shit.

Well God bless you sir/mam. I truly hope no one ever wants to take aways any of the rights you enjoy.

gawd i love this place.

my steadfast refusal to defend stern's mysogany is somehow morphed into taking away people's rights? how bizarre!

go forth! protest and boycott to protect your "right" to free howard stern with my blessings!

just don't expect me to lift a finger to make that faker richer.

Howard Stern's E! Show doesn't include the news segment he does near the end of each radio show, which many people consider the best part of the show.

He gives his opinion on the news near the end of every radio show, so while his opinion may be rightwing or leftwing on a particular issue or in a given year, his show has had politcal content for decades and will continue to.

witness it... just folks telling you to pipe down and go away--no one wants to hear a whiner.

No one has called Stern a paragon of virtue on the air-waves and no one's holding him up as a shining example of goodness and decency. To me, Rush Limbaugh is more vulgar than Stern, yet he's still on the air. Right wing radio is incindiary, lie-ridden and desperate to mislead the American sheeple. Right now, Stern's got at his disposal a huge media dissemination machine and because he's not towing the line in one manner of his speech according to the FCC, they want to set the precident with him that they can strip anyone they choose of their first amendment rights by issing crippling fines against them. Clear Channel and Infinity have got the pockets to play this game (you can bet Mike's got some pals working at both places), but you and I don't. And that is the issue.

Stripping Stern's rights away will leave a scar on the first amendment that will never, ever heal properly... and the Rethugs will pick away at the scab/callous until our constitution no longer looks anything like it did in 1776.

we can all agree that Stern is an acquired taste.

Not really the point here people!!! What if Dave Chapeal and Jon Stewart are next? Or even (insert your favorite comedian, singer/movie/TV show here)!!!!

are nto howard stern. at least i have never seen them get 'laughs' through the means howard does. if they get attacked pm me...i'll be there.

it's a matter of how i choose who (whom?) to champion.

If a woman marries a rich man for the security he provides, does that make her a whore?

Is he scum because he wants the most attractive companion his money can attract?

As a matter of fact, Stern has made men do much worse stunts to get plugs--and they're happy to get the chance.

stern is getting rich by exploiting women (and according to you, men too)and catering to the worst of my gender....beevis and betthead fart jokes.

gee...i should rise to the defense of someone getting rich by exploiting others. isn't that sort of the definitions of so many republicans we know and hate?

hey...if it floats your boat...go for it but i wouldn't lift a finger to save his multimillion dollar carreer.

that's pretty low rent in and of itself.
i'm not saying it doesn't merit a giggle -- just well you know.

fyi bearfartsinthewoods was the name a group of vietnam protesters took for themselves. we have lost track of each other and hope someday some of them will stumble in here or google the phrase and see the nic and say "hey".

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

just like the owners of the system that broadcasts stern are entitled to control his content, the owners of this forum are entitled to control my nic.

You are humorless! You act as if you are forced to listen to Stern. You are not, in fact you don't even have to own a radio if you don't want to. The air-ways belong to the people and 8 - 12 million people want to listen to Stern. Other want to listen to Rock, Jazz, News, Right Wing Talk, Top 40, Rap, Weather, Folk, Sports Talk, Children's Programs, and the most offensive stuff on the air-ways - Country.
I am offended by Country music! But I will never try to force my good taste onto the millions of Rednecks who live the stuff. I simply don't listen. That way I get what I want and others have their right to bad taste. Live and let live. We don't want everyone to be the same, that is a republican thing.

wherein, in matters concerning regs and laws, the majority rules via their elected representatives.

hint...8 to 12 sickos isn't the majority. are you offended that i see his fans as sickos?

tough...i'm exercising my freedom of speech. and anyone who enjoys what i saw last night is a sicko IMHO.

ahhh America..a grand thing. don't worry, stern will sign onto satellite radio and then can be as disgusting as he wants to be without interferance from the government. anyone who chooses can pay and tune in and listen to all the details of midget love and listen to him quiz little herc on his eight year old sex life and all will be well </sarcasm>.

Personal freedoms should never be a majority rule issue. Yes I respect your right to not like Stern and to think of his fans as "sickos". But as a part of the public who owns the air-ways I want my little slice to have Stern, Classic Rock, Sports, and no Country. Do what you want, but keep your paws off of my portion of the air-ways.

on the public roads and get head while i'm at it. screw the majority who thinks i shouldn't. keep them of my slice of the highway.

you don't own a slice of the airways. the totality of the people do and the majority's will is exercised to govern it's use.

You have often made this argument - 100 mph. The difference is that when you go 100 mph you put others at risk of physical and/or property damage and maybe even death. Listening to Stern may cause you to be grossed out but that is as far as it goes.

About you getting head... hey it's your money, do with it what you want.

i am an exceptional driver and put no one at any greater risk than the blue hairs who go 40 in the 65. and you are missing the point.

it isn't about comparitive risk. it is about the will of the majority to control the entirety of a publicly owned asset. you, personally own no 'slice' of the airwaves just as i own no 'slice' of the highway. both of our personal freedoms as concerning the use of the highways and the airways are subject to majority rule...this is pretty basic stuff here....

if the majority of the people wanted to drive 100mph and elected people on that criteria, we could drive 100. if a majority of the people wanted to eliminate indecency rules on broadcast radio and
elected people on that criteria, you could say nigger on the radio.

There is no comparitive risk. One act is a proven RISK - speeding. The other has no risk what so ever involved. But if you must compare the two:
Speeding occurs when someone goes faster than the legally posted speed limit.
At what point does indecency occur?

i guess i could cut and paste my previous post but it seems silly to do so since you obviously didn't read it the first time.

"At what point does indecency occur?"

well in this case, when stern allowed a caller's expression of the word nigger to be broadcast over the public airways.

You finally said it. You have used that word 2 or 3 times in this thread alone, yet you find it indecent. That word may be offensive but it is not a member of the "7 dirty words" outlined as offlimits by the FCC. By the way Stern hung up on the caller.

So...At what point does indecency occur?

stern, like every podunck broadcaster in this county, has the ability to delay and mute any caller. he didn't. the caller used the term nigger which is against FEC regs....bingo..offical indecency. he had the ability to prevent it and didn't.

and if you want to fuss over the fact that i actually print the entire word nigger when i am referencing the word nigger, i find it as exceedingly silly to type n****r as i would f**k. do you read the word n****r as n asteric asteric asteric asteric r or as nigger?

i bet , the later so what is the point of pretending?

the harm is not in the utterance or typing of the word but in it's use as a perjorative.

The word that you enjoy typing so much is not on the FCC list.

well actually i guess i do 'enjoy' typing words with double letters because it's easier.

ok.. so what is your point. i have been about as open as i can be in this exchange but i get the idea you are about to burst because you know something i don't know. lay it out.

is it that the FEC retains the right to determine what is and isn't offensive? and this ambiguity disturbs you and you are exceedingly upset that it doesn't disturb me?

by the fact that some people want the government to decide what we can and can not listen to, watch or do. I am also bothered that the set of rules that we have now do not apply equally to everyone. Maybe I am the problem, I am the one who thinks people should decide for themselves and that laws/rules should be applied equally.

if more people truly believed that we should fight for the abused instead of further abusing them in the name of the almighty dollar...

if women weren't discriminated by bankers and didn't need to humiliate themselves for the type of business edge that men get on the golf course...

if there were no more people who use derogative words for entire races of people.

if women weren't objectified for the size of their breasts or men for the size of their cocks.

if parents weren't nuts enough to allow their eight year olds to weight train to excess and be exploited by turds on the radio.

when people who are supposed to care about children and women and each other in general cast all that aside to champion the exploiiter instead of the exploited.

if all that was straightened out, maybe MAYBE, i'd waste my time ensuring that howard stern "king of all exploitors" can gin up enough support to sign another mega million dollas contract...but i doubt it.

that's it for me...the fact that this conversation is happening on DU is just too damn depressing.

the GOVERNMENT is a reflection of the majority of the people. you want to change the regulations but you are in the minority and you can't.

i resent that the people, as expressed by the GOVERNMENT restrict what i can eat and smoke and do with my life but it's tough because i am in the minority.

welcome to minority status...

Please come henceforth and cleanse this fair country of the filth and slander that offends me so!

You want offense? You want sick? Tune into the news each night and see what Bush is doing in mine and your name, channel your anger there friend.

Stern, Eminem, Tarrentino...clowns that sometimes strike poignancy when they hold a mirror up to our own filth. Don't hate the player...

and if you view asking an eight year old boy if he is getting any as culture..... :eyesroll:

and please point to any place i used the term filth. stern offends me on grounds of exploitation not filth. if people view exploitation as culture i say "friends romans welcome to the circus.
the lions will be eating the virgins during the 2 o'clock show.

there are things that should not be viewed as entertainment. where that line is drawn is up to the will of the majority when it occurs on the broadcast airways.

btw....eminem can;t say nigger on broadcast radio either.

ediuted for a smattering of clarity

Vicious people-users and misogynists like Howard Stern is exactly why we ought to have decency standards in broadcast media. Stern can say whatever he likes, but he shouldn't be allowed to pollute the public airwaves--which are part of the natural resources that we the people allow our government to regulate in our common interest--with his filth. I'd love to see Stern smacked down for real by a fair, impartical FCC that looks out for the public good.

But the case here is not that Stern is getting heat for his perpetual indecency. He's not getting heat for being a public nuisense with no accountability the communities whose values he offends at our expense. He's getting heat because his political views suddenly diverged from the FCC's conservative agenda.

While he demeaned women and poisoned the minds of young men with the sadistic mistreatment and bullying of his female guests but gave lipservice to nominally conservative politics, they left him alone. When he spoke out against Bush, they set him up with a bogus caller using the N word and then used that pretext to shut him down.

I'm a sworn opponent of the casual nazi-analogy used against the Bushies, but I think it's warrented here. In pre-war Europe many gypsies, living the traditional nomadic gypsy lifestyle, were genuine nuisenses. Their traveling communities tended to attract and harbor theives, con artists, and prostitutes. However wrong these activities were, it never justified the way the nazis treated them--rounding them up, imprisoning them wholesale, and executing them by the thousands, regardless of personal culpability.

Obviously the FCC isn't killing Howard Stern (which is why I'm reluctamt about the over-used nazi analogy), but their singling him out now is not a proportional or just use of the state's police powers. It's done with a cynical view toward advancing a wicked political agenda. Stern's bad, but there are plenty of on-air friends of Mr Powell who do much worse and face no retribution at all. That's what we oppose.

but knowing how slowly the wheels of gov turn, i find it hard to attribute this crackdown on a position he has so recently vocalized.

you do know that he has been fined before for indecency, don't you? at the time, clearchannel paid the fine because it was relatively insignificant as compared to the revenues he brought in.

things changed...the fines went up. and the offenses he is charged with are, well, offensive to me. he could have employed a delay and kept the nigger comment off the air if he chose but he didn't.

the instant the FEC tries to hit people for political speech i will be sooo there. but not for stern...when it is just as likely he is being justly fined for indecency.

btw...he isn't the only one getting hit. i saw a list of five other shock jocks somewhere a couple weeks ago, that were fined for sexual or racial content so that sort of cancels out the idea that he is being singled out because of bush-hits.

watching his show last night was an eye-opener. he is scum and he allowed indecency on his show (actually it kills me that what i saw isn't considered indecent on it's face but i guess i have different standards than the FEC) so the idea that he is busted for it makes much more sense than the fact that he has (very recently) became anti bush.

He's scum and he's guilty. Let him get punished. But just like the respectable right looks away while Ann Coulter indulges in her reckless, thoughtless liberal-bashing, I think decent people on the left who detest Stern's misogyny should pick another fight and let Howard do the damage that he'll do against the Bushies.

Or just like most African Americans knew that OJ was guilty as sin, they gave lip service to his cause because the trial exposed the inherent racism in the criminal justice system. Sure Stern deserves all the fines he gets for polluting the public airwaves. I still think it's worthwhile to let the controversy stew since in the long run it'll turn votes against Bush.

I don't wanna sound too cynical here. But then again I don't want our side to devote resources to issuing parking tickets outside the Reichstag.

(dammit, I keep promising myself to let off on the nazi comparisons!)

very well said.

but will you forgive me if i withold the lipservice? :evilgrin:

since another poster says his offense happened three years ago. i was under the empression that the fine for that offense was alloted and paid and that the new fine was for the N-WORD incident. if you know for sure let me know.

to go get it... jeez!!

No one is forcing any of those people to go on there.. Stern's show is mad publicity and mad $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and these chicks know it. His advertisers know it. And now, the Rethugs know it, ha ha!

Being on his show makes their "stock" go up... they sell product, whatever it is that they're selling or plugging. Time to turn the Alan-Alda-sensitive-guy act down to 90 on this issue.

This is bottom line--nothing more. It's business. They all have something they're promoting or selling.

i am also not blind to the way things are. there is not an even playing field for women trying to do business. i am married to a woman who is extremly talented and took a shot at a business and was struck down by imports. i know intimately what a person goes through when starting a business especially when the business is based on artistic endevors.

you say it's just business.....ok...let me put stern in with a loan shark. people do desperate things when trying to live their dreams.

because they are desperate, does that lesson the culpability of those who exploit that desperation? is the loan shark a good guy for offering them assistance?

a check cashing storefront who charges 25.00 for the act of cashing a check is just business but it's also explotation. a contrator who pays sub-living wages because he knows he can because he hires illegals is just business but still exploitation.

excuse me but i'd hope the ability to recognize an exploitator should not be something that gets a guy denegrated on a progressive board.

as to the idea that no one is forcing them....i say no one forces junkies to buy crack but society doesn't make heros of the pushers. society should recognize it's part in the desperation that breeds drug addictinon just as it should recognize the continuing inequality in the business rhelm.

and for sure, society should not make folk heros out of exploitators.

on the show i watched... a little kid who goes by the name of 'little herc'. the kids parents have obviously at least allowed the kid to do physical training to SUCH an extent that he had a set of abs that were chisled. i'm no doctor but i can't see that as appropriate for an eight year old. kids need a degree of body fat.

so...we have this kid sitting on the couch next to a blonde who is careesing/petting him and howard and crew are trying to find out if the kid is "getting any".

this is what you are defending when you defend stern. not just the bush hits. you are defending the explotation of a kid who is already probably being exploited by his parents. but of course..."no one is forcing any of those people to go one there" so that makes it OK by you.....

if my ability to recognize this as WRONG makes me "Alan-Alda-sensitive-guy " send me the button. i'll wear it proudly.

I'd say your beef is with contemporary predatory capitalism of which Stern is a simplistic but high-profile example.

I'll say it again...Stern's a moron and the people that choose (men and women) to go on his show for publicity are pathetic, but the numbers don't lie...going on the show bumps your profile...it's bottom line numbers...capatalism at it's most naked. He exploits them, they exploit him...equal opportunity opportunism.

I prefer to save my energy from attacking a clown like Stern and focus on real exploitation...The World Bank for instance....

I see a lot of Howard's grandstanding as a ratings lure as much as anything else. This is the Spring sweeps in most radio markets (in some this is the only time they're really measured all year) and thus any surge in ratings can be ridden through Christmas...and nothing spikes ratings more than being part of a news story/controvery. Howard knows it and plays it like a violin...that's how he's gotten to be the assumed "King of All Media".

Part of Howard's rage is geninue...and I sense he feels he's been betrayed, but to the extent he plays it up? It makes good radio circus.

At least several million male listeners who may have had favorable feelings toward the Chimpster are now being fed a daily doseage of anti-regime information. That's the good side of this coin.

And I'll take any help we can get in defeating Bush. If it takes tasteless jokes, then so be it.

BTW, where are all the free market folks on this issue? They want to argue that the free market is good for the economy, well, here is a test case. If folks don't want to listen to this "indecent" radio show, they'll change the channel. If they do, then they'll leave it on. The market will sort it out. I guess for the Repugs the free market is good for the economy but not for ideas.

the airwaves over which his show is broadcast is owned by the people and regulated in their name by the government. just like highways are a public asset used by private corps. we don't let trucking company's do whatever they want on the highways. the degree and direction of the restrictions and regulations are governed by who the majority of the people elect.

ya got two choices...wait till stern singns onto satellite radio which will be totally privately owned and totally free market or elect congreess that reflects your beliefs.

The issue is vagueness which allows arbitrary, heavy fines.

Howard Stern doesn't use expletives.

There is no clear definition of "indecency."

That means FCC Chairman Republican Michael Powell can define indecency however he chooses to drive critics of Bush of the air.

Today, Howard Stern. Tomorrow, Al Franken or Jeanine Garafalo.

Also, once Congress cheers itself for passing this bill, it may pass another bill to outlaw "indecency" on satellite radio.

They might even burn books.

Thank you Zack De La Rocha

Welcome to DU jorno67.

you think the fundies wouldn't do away with that if they had the legal means?

One step at a time and we all will be Southern Baptists wearing Limbaugh ties, drinking our Hannity Kool-Aid from our O'Rielly coffee mug watch the Fox News Network. Are you on the wrong Forum?

wrong forum:

the idea of majority rule is totally democratic as is a gut reaction to the exploitation of woman, the disabled and the poor.

at least it was as i was raised although it's hard to tell from this libertarian infested thread.

hate to break it to you but that's exactly the way it's supposed to work.

we need to work harder than they do.

...the benefits accrue to a select few. You or I cannot have a radio station. Only the Murdochs, Clear Channels, etc. can take advantage. And they pay nothing for this.

The analogy to the public highways, which we can use does not hold up.

--IMM

he's just a smuck like me. i bet he'd love to sell to murdoch or to you or to anyone with the bucks. he wants to retire.

you too can be a media mogul...buy his station.

Do I listen to Stern, no.

Do I defend is right to say what he wants to adults who have the free will not to participate in is debasing requests in exchange for product endorsements? Absolutely.

kids have radios too.

gee..i wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that broadcast radio is restricted??

BTW, when Bono was with Paul O'Neil I was thinking now even Bono is sucking up to Bush; after, of course, O'Neil came out of the closet we realize that Bono was hanging out with one cool old dude.

Has Bono reacted at all to the FCC?

FCC cited the lack of enforcement of decency standards up to now. His fuck wasn't as egregious as Stern's ongoing and blatent contempt for human dignity.

imagine o'reilly or hannity, sitting in their leather chairs in their corner offices offering authors a chance to be on their shows to push their books in exchange for taking their clothes off. is that ok?

what makes it ok for stern to do it. because you get to watch? because he currently doesn't like bush?
ppfffttttt!

to be on O'Really or Shammity.

I'd tell you what they were, but I don't want the FCC kicking in my door. ;)

When Howard Stern does it on the air, it's part of a humor segment.

If Howard Stern or another commentator did that in private, it wouldn't be humorous, and it would have no artistic function.

:eyesroll:
well i guess we need to agree to disagree. i didn't find the public torment of that woman amusing and you dud...fair enough.

I don't think a comedian on the radio asking a woman to show him her breasts is "public torment."

you had to be there...he held the progress/success of her business over her head. he taunted her and mocked her decision to not show him her breasts until he convinced her to toally disrobe for even less of a reward.

it was a bastard's job of manipulation and boy would i like ten minutes alone with him.

>>i didn't find the public torment of that woman amusing and you dud...fair enough.

Of course if Stern had Ann Colter on the show....

Ask Ann what was up with that Adams apple, beg her to keep her clothes on, ask here to specifically outline the decency rules of the FCC.

his supporters would be whistling a different tune.

the other day. He brags about not having a delay set-up. Naturally a caller started the conversation with the "F" word. I imagine caller was immediately on the phone to the FCC.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"bearfartinthewoods", it's called freedom of speech and anyone on Howard Stern's show can simply get up and walk out. (Just as anyone can flip their remote, change the channel or put a lock on that channel, if they so desire!!!!)

The FCC and the right-wing Clear channel (CC) is fucking with Stern...he's been doing this same shit for twenty years and the pigs at Clear Channel have made a lot of money off Stern...now they want to show they are concerned???? It's not because Powell at the FCC and CC are supporting Bush, now is it??? They are using Stern politically, but you of course only want to see it it in your narrow scope.

Yes, I seen Stern ask men to pull out their dicks, cocks what have you, to humiliate them, to see who has the SMALLEST cock!!! And at any time they could have simply just walked off. And anyone watching can simply change the channel.

Pay attention to the fucking issue here...Stern is vocally using his freedom of speech rights to bash the asshole George W Bush...fuck YES it's a freedom of speech issue!!!

By the way why isn't everyone at a Peace March right now, expressing and exercizing their freedom of speech? I'm on the west coast and my march starts at noon. See ya!!!

are you saying it would be a good thing to use that word on the public airways? take your narrow focus off stern and imagine a country where the local KKK owned a radio station and used the freedoms you want stern to enjoy, uncontrolled to amuse the sickos that would be their fans, over the public airways.

i am not taking the narrow view here...you are.

what you are talking about! Stern did not get fined for the use of that word. He got fined for a conversation he had 3 years ago about a sex act that was almost identical to one that reccently aired on the Oprah show.

then i guess the N-WORD episode is what prompted CC to suspend him? in any case i could give a F_WORD. if i really was minister of culture or had any power over howard at all i'd command him daily to parade before the masses and be critiqued as he is wont to do with woman.

but i can't do that. the best i can do is not listen and not defend his ass as some sort of martyr to the masses as if he were being punished for suddenly being anti bushco!

i might be open to a discussion of the comparitive harm between howard and ophra though at some future point. now that would be interesting as both made their money through exploitation.

....is thought of mostly for this very type of progamming....not for political reasons....the RIGHT gives us the rope to hang ourselves continually with this shit...it's what increases their ranks with the BORN AGAIN! I've fought to get this point across in a couple threads the last couple days but everybody's own self-righteous indignation has blinded them to the TRUTH...this type of thing is EXACTLY why ALL Deomocratic ideology is LOATHED and IGNORED...and also gives RUSH his audience which most everyone here always agrees RUSH shouldn't be allowed to lie like he does...hypocracy knows NO bounds! :eyes:

Like a website with the deadly 7.

If you want to urge people to visit a website critical of the FCC,
this is one of them:
http://www.stopfcc.com/
It is also important for people to call their Senators' offices and ask them not to increase FCC fines.

Toll-Free Number to ask to speak with any Senate office:
1-800-839-5276

If you want to look up the names of your Senators, go to:
www.vote-smart.org

I just went there, came here and did a search to see if anyone had posted about it, saw your post here, but I feel it might get lost in the quagmire!

nt

Just a few thoughts...

Yes, Howard IS being fined for something he talked about 3 years ago. Something that was talked about (in the same language) recenly on Oprah. His producer would NOT let him play the Oprah clip on air. Let's see if Oprah gets fined. And, by the way, it's the ClearChannel (or Infinity) censors that have their finger on the delay/mute button, not Howard or his staff.

Another ClearChannel host said "Fuck" (well, her sidekick did) more recently than the Stern show in question. She has not been fined nor disciplined, nor removed from any stations. The host in question is Laura Ingraham, who is very conservative.

I am not here to defend Howard's show, Yes, I find some of it amusing, and I find some of it crude...and turn the station. But that is not the issue. What I AM having a hard time with is some of posts here are the incredibly elitist attitudes. I like opera. Does that mean I can't like Stern? I like Stern. Does that mean I can't like opera. Taste in humor and entertainment should have no place in this dicussion. None. It is an overly self important and patronizing attitude.

Yes, companies make rules and their employess have to follow them. ClearChannel, though, only recently came up with it's new "decency standards". Yet they gave him no time to "adjust" (he's been doing the same thing for 20 years). When you consider that ClearChannel is a huge Bush contributor with close ties to both the religious right and the FCC, has fired other dj's for speaking out against Bush, and has ordered stations to not play Dixie Chicks songs for the same reason, you have to wonder.

And yes, the Government also makes laws and we must abide by them. But unlike, say, the speed limit, which is posted on roads and defined by factors like auto safety, population density, and such...the FCC operates in a veiled and highly political environment. The ONLY words the Supreme Court have defined as indecent are those infamous 7...and this back in 1974...words which regularly appear on song lyrics, some on TV shows, etc. Do you think the FCC will fine Oprah...or Laura Ingraham? The FCC is headed by Colin Powell's son...again, with ties, to the religious right and large corporate owned media conglomerates, many of which are buying the ever more privatized airwaves

The common theme here, besides double standards, is the religous right. Huge ultra-conservatibe think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, with budgets in the tens of millions of dollars have been driving this agenda. They pump money into the GOP, religious right causes, and well funded public campains attack progressive agendas and figuresm and to pull crap like this. They lobby the White House, they lobby the FCC, and they lobby their pals in the media.

So I guess it really IS about elitist atiitudes and self importance...and not really the best interest of the public. It reminds me of that poem...first they came to get the gays but that was okay because I wasn't gay, then they came for the Jews, but that was okay because I wasn't Jewish.

If you want to be upset at issues like the mistreatment of women, be upset at the REAL ones...pay equity, abortion rights, maternity leave, cancer rates...and not the purely aesthetic ones.

Nice job.

first, if you have more on laura ingram saying fuck? there's a cause i'll jump on.

second..whatever clear channel does with it's empire is their business as long as they obey existing laws. you want the government to be able to control the hirings and firings or rules of a private company,excepting existing regs on race, religion and ethnicity, campaign for new laws.

if you resent their empire, work to elect people who will break it up.

third..you act like powell is god and congress...our ELECTED voice had nothing to do with this. iirc, clear channel reacted to stern because they were about to answer an invite by the congress who was threatening greater controls if radio didn't clean up it's act. not a time to start defending a turd like stern imho.

fourth...I'M NOT ABOUT TO CRY BECAUSE HOWARD COULDN'T ADJUST TO NEW RULES. no one protects me from new rules or guarantees me time to adjust.

i don't disagree with some of what you've said. my crime it seems is that i'm not willing to defend stern. i'm more than willing to attack ingram or ophra if the case is as been put forth.

lastly, the type of 'humor' stern employs is just as destructive to women , imho. as any of the other things you mention. where you and i differ is i am not willing to give him a pass on it and you are.

you are willing to listen until he offends. i find him offensive period. so that makes me the bad guy? i don't think so. i don't think my refusal to enable stern is a problem at all.

Not to defend Stern, please respect my right to defend him and my right to believe that this is a very important issue. As far as I'm concerned if you don't like this fight for the First Amendment - change the channel.

ask me to respect that you choose to.

there is an issue....the seizure of medical records and the targeting of an accused criminal based on who he is rather than the crime of which he is accused. yeppers...i'm talking about rush. it seems old rushbo is being raked over the coals of justice to a degree that no other resident of his country has ever been raked and i'm willing to bet it's because of his political leanings.

anytime the issue is raised of the seizure of his medical records or the efforts of the DA to bring him down, people hear shout hallejlua...ole rushbo is getting what he deserves....with me, in the chorus, btw.

have you risen to his defense? i know i haven't because i'm no more likely to defend his butt than stern's. i'm consistent and open about the fact that the person involved matters to me. the idea that the cops seize anyone's medical records and go fishing in them without due cause should scare the pants of the left but, other than the ACLU, i hear no one screaming foul.

selective prosecution has been raised in the stern issue but is studiously ignored in rushgate. so, as far as i can see, this sudden willingness to adopt and support the most heinous of people when they face the wrath of authority is hypocritical because it still selects who to defend with a political eye rather than a principaled one.. otherwise the case or lack of case against rush would have merit on this board.

so...for all you defenders of stern who proclaim your defense lies not with him but of the principle, that it's the issue of the threat to the whole of the body that overwhelms the character of the person in specifics, let me hear you defend rush with the same vigor if you want me to respect your devotion to principle.

otherwise...knock yourselves out in your "principled" defense of stern's freedom of speech on the grounds but please don't be upset if i ain't buying it or if i don't respect the effort. or if i shout:
hallejlua...ole sternbo is getting what he deserves.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

or so i've been told.

your arguement sways me about as much as the right's insitance that the right to bear applies to uzis.

sways as much as Dubya's insistance the constittution needs some "fixin" by adding a ban on gay marriage

i have been here long enough to have learned to focus on the subject matter. i referenced the right's illogical adherance to absolutism in regard to the right to bear only to exemplify that the right to absolute free speech is non existant as well.

i guess i could have brought up the ole "yell fire in a theater" instead so mea culpa.

if your lookin to argue GLBT rights, look elsewhere.

in circles. Fine, don't respect anyone and anything and believe that you are RIGHT. It's your world.

lash out at people with pointless insults.

the only people i have shown a lack of respect are howard stern and the people who find what i saw on his show entertaining and any hypocrites who claim the merit of the issue outweighs the merit of the man, unless they are also a rush defender.

i can live with that.

and i'm sorry to have talked circles around you.

Nutcase,Kansas) who's the one telling Mel Karmazin to take Stern off the air. Please clean up the airwaves Brownback, I need to be told what I can listen too or watch. :puke: :grr: :eyes: I need Big Brother to protect me from the real world. It's dangerous and filled with ideas and points of view that are contrary to mine. I'm lazy and can't turn the dial. :eyes:

by exploiting women, the handicap and the poor. yes rise, RISE to the defense of sir howard who demands women strip in exchange for boob jobs and men whip out their cocks to be humiliated.

what a way to get rich! what a servant of humanity! what a worthwhile cause to celebrate the grande traditions of liberalism and the democratic party.

Other than Lotto winners, what millionare(s) got that way by being a choir boy? (no catholic jokes please).

I deal with sexism on a daily basis in my profession and I still feel it necessary to say

Even people who have made millions exploiting women have the right to free speech. Those who are offended have the right to change the station.

-chef-

that practices a free market economy. If people didn't like him, they wouldn't listen to him. But this offends you and for that I'm sorry. Free speech isn't about speech we agree with, it's about speech we disagree with.

The KKK would like to see me, and others, killed. But I will defend their right to say what they want. I find Ann Coulter devisive, mean-spirited, lying, and demeaning to many minority groups. But I will defend her right to say what she wants. Would you defend either of these? How do you feel about flag burning?

I respect the fact that you do not like Stern's show, and that YOU feel he exploits women. But what I don't respect is that you want him off the air simply because of what YOU think. It seems to have nothing to do with laws, and I find that an extremely dangerous attitude. Simply because you don't like the message is NOT good enough. What's to stop "them" from then pulling off MTV, banning songs from the air...and then books? And then those silly lawn decorations of the fat woman bending over in the garden! It IS an all or nothing proposition. Living with messages and views you vehemently dislike and disagree with is a fundamental criterion for living in this country. And expressing these views, a fundamental right. To not respect a peron's right to express his or her views and to not respect a person because they DEFEND these rights is simply saying...."You are an idiot becasue you don't agree with me." How very Bill O'Reilly of you.

By the way, exploitation is defined as; "Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes". Women get $10,000 worth of cosmetic surgery, Howard satisfies his juvenile side...who gets the most out of it? Sounds like bartering to me...albeit somewhat prurient. It's all consentual and people know what they are in for. And it's not like Howard is denying them food, shelter, ar life. Yes. it can be considered exploitation....but is it exploitation along the lines of US corporations using 12 year olds to make clothing for pennies a day? But I digress, I am not trying to defend Howard or change your mind about him.

Do you honestly believe that yelling "Fire" in a movie theater is the same as someone saying "anal sex" on the air. Do you honeslty believe that the effects are the same? The laws don't. And do you honestly believe that the public are in SUCH need of protection...that they can't make their own judgements and decions about what they want to listen to?

Indecency laws are fuzzy and are very much based on "contemporary community standards". You want to tell ME what that means? Does the fact the Stern has the highest ratings contribute anything to "community standards".

And let's talk about the way the FCC has handled this. On March 18, AFTER Stern bashed Bush, the FCC proposed a $27,500 fine against Stern for a broadcast that aired in Detroit on July 26, 2001. Before that action, Infinity and Stern had not been cited since June 1998.

And let's talk about how Clear Channel has handled this. On Feb. 24, Stern and a guest talked about sex for a while, and then Stern took phone calls from listeners. One caller asked the guest if he’d ever had sex with a black woman. The caller, used the n-word, and asked if black women smelled like watermelons. Within 24 hours, Clear Channel had suspended Stern from the six Clear Channel stations that carried him. Now, the remark in question was obviously hateful and asinine. But does it justify yanking Stern? Stern didn’t say the word and certainly didn’t endorse it. He hung up on the caller and rebuked him on air. And this was after he had criticized Bush.

It's not about defending one person, it's about a dangerous precedent that could be set and THAT IS being set.

Pressure from their religious right and ultra-conservative funders...large corporate media with huge GOP ties, and the FCC, wanting to reward loyal supporters: It's a vocal minority that is deciding what what we can say and what we can hear. And it's NOT about voting anybody out, it's about defending what is inherently ours. If you don't care, then you have no right to complain when they ticket your garden gnome and decide that NPR can't air La Traviata because sex and syphilis are mentioned.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You traitor!