Stern Partially Silenced, Defended by Congressman

FMQB ^ | 3/12/04

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Howard Stern was partially silenced today - by himself. The King of All Media signed on this morning with a montage of radio station promos and soundbites from Talk shows and government officials speaking about the raging debate over indecency. The dramatic audio collage was laced with snippets fom protest songs, like Creedence Clearwater Revival's "Fortunate Son," Bob Marley & The Wailers' "Get Up, Stand Up," Thunderclap Newman's "Something In The Air" and Stern's own remix of KoRn's "Y'All Want A Single."

It wasn't until roughly 7:15am EST that Stern spoke his first new words of the day, though they came in the form of a recorded message to Stern show producer, Gary Dell'Abate. "I want to try and put together a show where I don't talk," Stern said in the message, explaining the morning's unusual opening 90 minutes. "It's one of those rare instances where I think we have to put together a special show, because they are really f**cking with us."

After another 15 minutes of montage, Stern finally cracked the mic to the tune of "Born In The U.S.A." by Bruce Springsteen & The E Street Band. "It's the end of free speech," said Stern, expressing his dismay and shock over yesterday's vote by the House of Representatives on H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004. "It's really the end. This country is nuts and George W. Bush has to go. If you are a fan of mine, and I reach millions of people, just get him out of office. Your rights are being taken away."

"When I got into radio, it was a wasteland of people playing records and news guys not giving opinions," Stern continued. "I got on the air and changed it. I bucked the system. The reason there are freedoms on the air today is because of what I did. Period. End of sentence. I fought everyone who ever said to me, 'You can't do what you are doing on the air.' I've been fighting it for 25 years so jerk-offs like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and the whole lot of them could get on the air and have a party. I'm all for it and all for free speech, but remember who got you there. It's not the guys who didn't take risks. It's the guys who are on the front line. Rush Limbaugh wasn't on the frontlines of Vietnam because of his knee injury and he wasn't on the frontlines of the radio industry when I was breaking down all the walls. The same with Bill O'Reilly. He was an anchorman sitting there behaving himself and then they all saw what radio could be and what television could be and what it's like to express themselves. And now they all sit idly by."

The opening marathon montage included audio from a speech by NY Congressman José E. Serrano from yesterday's debate prior to the House vote. "The big question on this bill is 'Why now?' There are enough laws in place and regulations to deal with this issue," Serrano said. "I feel that some of the good, well-intentioned members have been caught up in this desire to all of a sudden clear up the airwaves. I believe it is a distraction. It is a weapon of mass distraction to keep us away from the real issues at hand. The fact is, that this part of my opinion of the continuing thinking of the Patriot Act, the philosophy of the Patriot Act, that says we will read your e-mails, we will find out what you take out from the library. We will hold you in detention without charges or a lawyer and we will then tell you what you can listen to on the radio. Now, let's understand something, the target here is coming from the political and religious right and it is directed only at that which they think is bad, anti-American, or indecent. Right-wing radio which demonizes liberals, minorities, environmentalists, pro-choice and animal rights activists, they are fine, they will not be touched. And let me for the record say, I support their right to say whatever they want about me and other liberals.

"The main target these days is Howard Stern," Serrano continued. "What does Howard Stern have to do with this issue and the political agenda? For years, he supported the administration on the war. He supported the administration on capital punishment. He supported the administration on just about everything. The last couple of months he has had a change of heart and started opposing the war, opposing the opposition to [stem cell] research, opposing the opposition to pro-choice and all of a sudden, he's in deeper trouble than he has ever been in before. How else can we explain that the day before his bosses, Clear Channel, were to face a congressional committee, they fired him from six markets throughout this country? The FCC has been complaining about his locker humor jokes for years. Some people have suggested that he was not in good taste for years. But now the big bang to get him off the air? Was he okay when he was supporting the administration? How did Clear Channel decide to knock out its number one money maker one day before facing Congress? I wish I was the telephone company and could have heard those phone calls coming in with the political pressure. My friends, this is a dangerous time. This bill should be defeated. If for no other reason to send a message that there is something larger here at work than simply something you don't like. What I don't like, may be something you like and vice versa. The best protection we have is not this bill. Just turn the channel, switch the station."

Stern also said this morning that ABC put in a request for FCC Chairman Michael Powell to be a guest on his first interview show. The reply was a curt: "We thank you for your invitation. We regretfully decline your interview request at this time."

[Ol' Sparky]

"When I got into radio, it was a wasteland of people playing records and news guys not giving opinions," Stern continued. "I got on the air and changed it. I bucked the system. The reason there are freedoms on the air today is because of what I did. Period. End of sentence. I fought everyone who ever said to me, 'You can't do what you are doing on the air.' I've been fighting it for 25 years so jerk-offs like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and the whole lot of them could get on the air and have a party. I'm all for it and all for free speech, but remember who got you there. It's not the guys who didn't take risks. It's the guys who are on the front line. Rush Limbaugh wasn't on the frontlines of Vietnam because of his knee injury and he wasn't on the frontlines of the radio industry when I was breaking down all the walls. The same with Bill O'Reilly. He was an anchorman sitting there behaving himself and then they all saw what radio could be and what television could be and what it's like to express themselves. And now they all sit idly by."

And, to think, Rush defended this creep's "free speech" rights...

[contessa machiaveli]

i don't want the government to determine who i can listen to on the radio. i'm an adult and can decide for myself. what is the definition of indecency?
the feds are making a huge mistake with this crusade. remember these words. howard will not go quietly into the night...nor should he.

[isthisnickcool]

I don't like Stern or Kerry or Hillary or Bill or etc,etc,etc. But I'll be the last one to say they can't speak whatever garbage they have to say. I don't have to listed to it. In Stern's case I can turn him off or change the channel. As well as the others.

If Stern's employer wishes to silence him that's their option. Not the gov't. It's also Stern's option to find another employer or become his own. He certainly has the money to do whatever he wants so I'll shed no tears for Stern. Who I expect is very happy since many grownups are actually paying attantion to him for a change. For a minute anyway.

As far as Stern trashing Bush? Screw Stern!<--See, I get to say that (as long as it's OK with JR).

[sox_the_cat]

I agree, even Mancow is knocking Bush lately on Fox in the morning.

[Prodigal Son]

And, to think, Rush defended this creep's "free speech" rights...

Yep, and Rush was right too.

[2banana]

Mr. Stern:

You rant and rave about protecting the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. You call yourself a defender of the Constitution and are being sacrificed for defending it.

Yet you have continually and incessantly attacked the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution for years.

You have failed to realize that the same arguments that you have personally used to attack one Amendment of the Bill of Rights could be used to attack any part of the Bill of Rights.

You just can't pick or choose that parts you want to defend. It is an all or nothing kind of thing.

Sadly, you are now learning that lesson.

Regards,

2banana


"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."
--Alan Dershowitz

[Who dat?]

Right-wing radio which demonizes liberals, minorities, environmentalists, pro-choice and animal rights activists, they are fine, they will not be touched.

Yes. Demonizing isn’t prohibited. Certain issues dealing with nudity, indecency, vulgarity, and profanity are.

For instance (at least at one time), there were prohibitions against broadcasting graphic detail regarding excreta. It was usually considered urine and feces, though I guess it would cover waste excreted from the body in general.

Stern knows all this, BTW. Don’t fall for the “what did I do” line. So Stern promptly brings in some mentally disturbed man so a female guest can vomit on him. So does vomit constitute waste excreted from the body? Does their description of the act constitute “graphic detail?”

That’s the type of thing the FCC has to waste time trying to determine. Don’t get sidetracked by the dupes claiming it has to do with demonizing or silencing someone – there’s no “right” to broadcast. Never has been.

Their license gives them the privilege to broadcast provided they comply with a book full of regulations. They’ve never been bashful enforcing those regulations on the amateur side and it’s nice they’re momentarily looking at the commercial side.

[Weimdog]

"Yet you have continually and incessantly attacked the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution for years."

You'll have to back that one up with a direct quote because Stern admits to packing his own heat.

I used to be a daily listener to Stern until I discovered adult radio, but I will defend Stern's right to say whatever he wants as long as he doesn't say the 7 dirty words. If one finds his statements crude, change the channel.

[ijcr]

Then pray tell us why there is a time delay and cut off button for every caller to a radio program? Why is it that the public's free speech is controlled and not the hosts'?
Stern can move to satellite radio and if his show is that good he will get the listeners.

[AmishDude]

Baba Booey!

Just trying to bring the proper tone to the Stern threads.

You may all continue reading about the regularly-scheduled bleating from the poor widdle victim.

[Paradox]

I think it is reasonable for the government to impose some kind of restrictions on BROADCAST speech. The question is, what kind and how much? Since they are PUBLIC airways, the public should have some say in it.

Honestly, Stern should take his act (I am a STERN show FAN, yes, I admit it) to cable (which he has, on the E! channel) and satellite. Then he could REALLY go off!

As much as I like his show, ya know, the guy is a bit... paranoid, always has been. Has those "issues" about his father, blah blah, sometimes he wusses out like that..

[hchutch]

Agreed. If he's going down at the hands of the FCC, he is going to take the Republicans down with him.

There should have been outreach, particularly after 9/11, but the GOP was too afraid of the fit the "culture warriors" would have thrown to take that step. And, with the Janet Jackson incident turning the prude patrol loose big-time, we're being perceived as favoring censorship, and that perception is causing people who would otherwise vote for Bush to consider voting for Kerry.

Talk about stupidity...

[gdani]

Their license gives them the privilege to broadcast provided they comply with a book full of regulations

And what exactly are the FCC regulations governing speech such as Howard Stern's?

(I already know the answer -- it's whatever the FCC feels like at any given moment).

[mhking]

There was a time when Stern would jump up and down and go off on the notion of anyone who whined like he is doing.

I guess what's good for the goose is not good for the gander, eh, Howard?

[lonerepubinma]

I get a kick out of those who choose to constantly "push the envelope" and then get upset when the envelope rips.

[oceanview]

there would be total chaos on the public airwaves for both TV and radio without government regulation. porn and profanity would be everywhere, and you cannot have enough electronic devices to screen the material from children, or from the culture as a whole. what stern does is not political speech.

[oceanview]

any standard written by men is by definition arbitrary. the alternate to arbitrary rules, is no rules at all. imagine what broadcast TV and radio would be like in that environment?

[hchutch]

This isn't whining. The AFA has all but said they want him off the air, and the FCC could do so. The prude patrol is on the loose, and Howard's fighting back.

[Ol' Sparky]

No, he is wrong on this one. One doesn't have the right to say anything on the public airwaves any more than someone has right to post pornographic pictures on a billboard on an busy interstate.

[StoneColdGOP]

Yes, and Rush was right to do so.

Notice that Stern hasn't called for Limbaugh or O'Reilly to be silenced? No, he only blasts their politics - you can do that with the FIRST AMENDMENT.

I hope Howard rides this out and survives, because listening to Limbaugh in the morning is NOT a pleasant option.

I can only take so much "See, I was RIGHT about this", and "I TOLD YOU that the Democrats would say..." and "Once again, I correctly PREDICTED that John Kerry", etc etc. There's only so much of that self-promoting windbag I can take.

But he should never be silenced by the government. Nor should Stern.

[Old Professer]

Stern thinks he is Don Quixote, but he is the little Dutch Boy and that ain't no windmill or a dike - it's a big-bad bushhog and his ass is grass.

[gdani]

any standard written by men is by definition arbitrary.

I'm talking about degree here. The FCC states that you can't engage in indecent speech but provides very little/no idea what "indecent" means.

the alternate to arbitrary rules, is no rules at all. imagine what broadcast TV and radio would be like in that environment?

You mean what it would be like if we let the marketplace decide & gave offended people the option of actually peeling their asses off the couch & changing the channel?

Sounds great to me.

If you don't like something, don't watch it. But what business does *anyone* have telling me what I can or cannot listen to, read or watch?

[gdani]

there would be total chaos on the public airwaves for both TV and radio without government regulation. porn and profanity would be everywhere...

So the problem isn't so much that you don't like the speech as you don't want anyone else to watch either.

How about this -- I don't decide what you watch or listen to - don't decide for me. For $12 you can purchase this device called a "remote control" at Radio Shack. It is your friend.

....what stern does is not political speech

Well, some of it is. But even if it's not so what? Are you maintaining that the First Amendment is only for political speech?

[Prodigal Son]

Well, that's your opinion. I've got mine.

[oceanview]

the marketplace decides to a point. we live in a society that is shaped by the media culture. if the media is allowed to show anything it wants without restriction, in time it will shape the culture into accepting that as the "norm". the media has the power to re-define the marketplace to its liking. its already happening in this country, look at the MTV culture as an example. how much worse do we want it to get?

we simply have to recognize the fact that we have public airwaves in this country. our distribution system for media content just doesn't have all these safeguards available in it, and just saying "change the channel" is not enough.

[gdani]

if the media is allowed to show anything it wants without restriction, in time it will shape the culture into accepting that as the "norm"......how much worse do we want it to get?

While I wouldn't agree with such people, I have no real problem with private organizations such as the American Family Assoc lobbying advertisers & station owners to drop the Howard Stern show.

If you don't like what you see on TV, radio, video games, etc then -- by all means -- boycott advertisers, write letters, etc.

However, it's quite a different thing when the Govt gets involved & takes sides.

I, for one, don't need nanny Govt protecting me from the big, bad man & his naughty words.

[Unicorn]

I still say stern sucks.

[contessa machiaveli]

OK, i can respect your opinion....just turn the dial.
however, I enjoy howard, your rights end where mine begin. he's on 6-10 AM, "the children" are in school, if not they have some adult supervision. if they're teenagers it's too late. the genie is out of the bottle.

the bottom line is PARENTS have to instill morality and not count on society, or TV, or radio to do so.

i am not responsible for other people's children.

[oceanview]

you might not, but the culture does.

[Ol' Sparky]

There is difference between spewing indecency on the public airwaves and political speech. We have had indecency laws in this nation since the early 1930s and justifiably so.

[E Rocc]

Yet you have continually and incessantly attacked the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution for years.

When?

Rosie vs. Selleck, Round II

by Marcus Errico
May 20, 1999, 2:00 PM PT

A day after Rosie O'Donnell blasted a stunned Tom Selleck for his pro-gun leanings on her talk show, both host and guest addressed the ultra-tense TV encounter, while none other than Howard Stern also entered the fray.

Selleck, appearing on ABC's The View today, called O'Donnell "pretty unprofessional" for yesterday's face-off. He said he only wanted to plug his new flick, The Love Letter, and not debate gun control.

He also questioned how anti-violent O'Donnell can be with all the laser gun-toting Phantom Menace toys littering her desk.

For her part, O'Donnell spent the opening of her Thursday show claiming that the actor's camp knew she was going to bring up Selleck's NRA ways, but acknowledges he might not have been ready for her blitzkrieg attack. "My intent was to have a calm discussion," she said. "I just get very passionate.

"My intention is never to embarrass or humiliate guests," she added, extending a mea culpa to Selleck.

However, Rosie refused to apologize for her frequent anti-gun tirades, pointing to today's school shooting in Georgia and last month's Columbine High School massacre in Colorado. "At some point, we as a society have to do something," she said.

Meanwhile, in a brazen, made-for-headlines stunt on his syndicated radio show, Howard Stern stormed O'Donnell's studio Thursday and demanded an audience with the outspoken daytime doyenne.

The self-anointed King of All Media said he was willing to debate O'Donnell "anytime, anywhere" on the issue of gun control, something he opposes and she adamantly supports. Stern insisted he'd do a better job than Selleck; arguing with the erstwhile Magnum, Stern said, was like debating a "retarded person."

"Rosie O'Donnell is a hypocrite...Why is she confronting Tom Selleck when in fact she's a gun saleswoman?" Howard asked, refering to Rosie's shilling for Kmart, one of the nation's largest gunsellers. (For the record Rosie told viewers that she wrote to Kmart after the Columbine killings and requested the retail giant stop selling firearms--but she's stopped short of saying she'd end her sponsorship deal.)

-Eric

[jwalsh07]

OK, i can respect your opinion....just turn the dial. however, I enjoy howard, your rights end where mine begin. he's on 6-10 AM, "the children" are in school, if not they have some adult supervision. if they're teenagers it's too late. the genie is out of the bottle.

Howard Stern is a whining 50 year old.

Governments exercise censorship, businesses exercise judgement.

Howard can go to satellite radio or cable and broadcast all the crap he wants.

The broadcast spectrum in this country is publicly owned which means that the owners set the rules.

Nobody owes Stern a soapbox, a microphone or special rights. He has the same rights as anybody else.

If you and others don't like public ownership of the broadcast spectrum, I would suggest you do something about it. Until then it will be regualted. And if you do manage to do something about it, you should figure out a way to keep his broadcast frequency off of my property.

Tragedy of the commons not withstanding.

[E Rocc]

you might not, but the culture does.

You mean control of the culture does.

Where in the Constitution is this established as a legitimate government function?

-Eric

[FreeReign]

Howard can go to satellite radio or cable and broadcast all the crap he wants.

Be resonable! That would be too much trouble for Howard and his listeners. They need public assistance as well as some of your private property to get their porn.

The broadcast spectrum in this country is publicly owned which means that the owners set the rules.

The freedom of pornographic expression on property that you don't fully own is an unalienable right.

If you and others don't like public ownership of the broadcast spectrum, I would suggest you do something about it. Until then it will be regualted. And if you do manage to do something about it, you should figure out a way to keep his broadcast frequency off of my property.

Forget private property rights. Especially if somebody wants to broadcast hot steaming spluge across yours.

[oceanview]

OK, so let's have Time Warner and the media titans control the culture. That surely must be better then having some modest regulation by an elected government.

[oceanview]

rent the movie Thirteen, then let's talk. that is where the media is taking the culture, as seen through the experiences of two teenage girls. parents have no chance against an omnipresent media.

[StoneColdGOP]

There is difference between spewing indecency on the public airwaves and political speech.

Very well. Please define them both for me, if you would.

[F16Fighter]

Plain and simple:

If you support Stern, you support moral anarchy.

Your support for Stern also supports sodomy videos during the TV cartoon hour, sodomy acts portrayed on billboards, and unregulated on air obscenity (including reference to sodomy of course) 24/7.

But I guess the answer for you people is "turn it off, shut your eyes, and close your ears" -- HOWARD STERN'S HOLY GRAIL CRUSADE FOR "FREEDOM" MUST PREVAIL!

[NYCVirago]

This isn't whining. The AFA has all but said they want him off the air, and the FCC could do so. The prude patrol is on the loose, and Howard's fighting back.

It's whining. Howard claimed last Friday that the FCC would have him off the air by this week. Now that it hasn't happened, he's threatening to quit. His politics are now closer to Michael Moore than George Pataki's. He had Margaret Cho, for goodness sakes, on his show this week. The guy has lost it bigtime, and he's going to do nothing but whine from now on. When he starts losing more listeners, because people don't want to hear him whine anymore, he'll blame that on Bush, too.

[E Rocc]

OK, so let's have Time Warner and the media titans control the culture. That surely must be better then having some modest regulation by an elected government.

It's not only better, it's way better.

Why? Because one can opt not to do business with the media titans. A counterculture can easily spring up. Indeed during the early 1950s when the media titans had far more control over communication than they do today, they tried to impose a bland culture. Rock and roll still broke past it.

When the government controls it, there are no options. Indeed, when we are talking about the economy instead of the culture, this is one of the fundamental precepts of conservatism.

-Eric

[E Rocc]

If you support Stern, you support moral anarchy.

Correction: moral liberty.

-Eric

[F16Fighter]

"Correction: moral liberty."

From a true anarchist's perspective...

Be sure to get yourself front-row center at the Sodomy Parade slip-slidin' down Main Street next year.

[F16Fighter]

"His politics are now closer to Michael Moore than George Pataki's. He had Margaret Cho, for goodness sakes, on his show this week."

But don't "birds of a feather flock together"? And Cho is about as funny as stepping on a rusty nail...

So desperate is Stern now, that he must beg all the misfits, moral anarchists, and scum-bags of the world to support his mult-million dollar salary and "right" to retain his throne as 'King Of All Scatology and Perversion Comedy' so he may continue on "serving" his "subjects."

How utterly pathetic.

[contessa machiaveli]

i'm offended by all the bogus evangelists i hear on radio stations when i'm south of the M/D line. they prey on demented elderly for contributions, they're thieves and that is obscene, should i have the right to take them off the radio? or should i just hit the off button?

[FreeReign]

i'm offended by all the bogus evangelists i hear on radio stations when i'm south of the M/D line. they prey on demented elderly for contributions, they're thieves and that is obscene, should i have the right to take them off the radio? or should i just hit the off button?

The public consensus doesn't want sexual pervision on their airwaves. The public hasn't said the same about "bogus" evangelists.

[FreeReign]

"Correction: moral liberty." From a true anarchist's perspective...

Yes, the freedom to do whatever you want on public property is an anarchist POV.

[NYCVirago]

But don't "birds of a feather flock together"? And Cho is about as funny as stepping on a rusty nail...

No kidding. Who's next on the show -- Barbara Streisand?

So desperate is Stern now, that he must beg all the misfits, moral anarchists, and scum-bags of the world to support his mult-million dollar salary and "right" to retain his throne as 'King Of All Scatology and Perversion Comedy' so he may continue on "serving" his "subjects." How utterly pathetic.

You've got that right. Stern was threatening to have a Million Moron March on Washington -- no joke. I'd love to see it happen, frankly!

[contessa machiaveli]

sexual perversion? remember jimmy swaggart, jim bakker, bob livingston, and we can't forget the issue being made about the homosexual lifestyle or abortion.
i believe until we have lawmakers who have never taken a walk on the wild side (can't forget tim hutchinson, or govs. perry and owens, or good ole bill clinton)they should just keep there mouths closed and legislate the important issues.
i really don't think they want a cultural war, it will get very ugly. howard talks about things our upstanding legislators do in the shadows.

[F16Fighter]

"i'm offended by all the bogus evangelists i hear on radio stations when i'm south of the M/D line. they prey on demented elderly for contributions, they're thieves and that is obscene, should i have the right to take them off the radio? or should i just hit the off button?"

First things first -- capital letters -- they have been invented...

Now for an answer to your lame-o analogy:

Though you may into scat, that's your problem, but try backing up your goofy charges by levying a specific charge against a specific evangelist that violates FCC, obscenity, or decency laws and standards...

That is IF you can find your way out of the bathroom and back to your PC.