Posted on 11/24/2004 12:42:38 AM PST by kattracks
THE next time the FCC complains about How ard Stern, Viacom has promised to yank him off the air immediately.The unusual "sudden death" deal is part of a sweeping, $3.5 million consent decree announced yesterday by the FCC that wipes out "at least 50" indecency investigations against all of Viacom's radio and TV stations — including several against Stern, as well as Opie & Anthony's $357,000 fine for their infamous "Sex in St. Pat's" contest.
It does not include the $550,00 fine against CBS for Janet Jackson's Super Bowl flash, which the network has vowed to fight in court.
Viacom is the owner of Infinity Broadcasting — Stern's boss — and CBS and UPN.
Under the agreement, Viacom promised to install a company-wide "Compliance Plan." The plan stipulates that any employee who draws a formal FCC complaint will be suspended immediately while an internal investigation is conducted.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Latest episode of soap opera, "As the World Sterns"
Stern is a dirtbag and the sooner he's off the air the better.
With all the filth in contemporary culture, I never saw the point of listening to Stern's show. It just seemed redundant...like defecating on the L.A. Times.
lol !!!
Attention FREEPERS, you know what to do!
Thought I can't stand Howard Stern, I'm troubled about the ruling. I understand what indencent and obscene language is as well.. but here's my concern.... who will decide to define what it is. What if someone finds political discussion indecent?? Maybe I'm straying off the bus here, but I'd sure like the FCC to make this clear as a bell. You KNOW some congress critters are trying to pull Rush off AFRTS... You've heard where a Kerry campaign spokesman told Sinclair Broadcasting that 'they better HOPE Kerry isn't elected (or they'd punish them for trying to show Stolen Honor) .... Soooooooo, I'll just wait to celebrate this announcment.
YIKES..
Sorry, I didn't spell check that last post.. :( plz 4gv me. :)
OK folks...think for just a second what this means. A small group can file enough complaints to silence anyone they don't agree with.
If that doesn't scare you, nothing will.
stern.....yank 'em and spank 'em.....
"OK folks...think for just a second what this means. A small group can file enough complaints to silence anyone they don't agree with.
If that doesn't scare you, nothing will."
Well, then according to your philosophy, nothing can ever be stopped from being put on the air. Because you can never go too far. Or at least you seem to be saying no one will ever be able to define what is too far, beyond the pale. So, even though there were innumerable complaints about Janet Jackson's "boob" act at the Super Bowl game, those complaints according to you are just a "small" group trying to silence those that disagree with them. That's why our country is going downhill fast, morally. Because of those who say because someone further down the line may use a policy to shaft those opposing their viewpoint as well, we do nothing.
The Dems will always use a policy to shaft opposing viewpoints first chance they get, as it is in their nature. When in power, they simply mow over all opposing viewpoints, and ignore laws as well, or change them to suit themselves. If the Pubs don't wise up and set up opposing policies while they have the upper hand, then we are doomed to continue the downhill slide into moral turpitude. And that includes FCC policy. At least the Pubs, while in power, should set up as many policies and laws and get as many judges w/conservative views in office as they possibly can, to offset what you know will be coming if the Dems regain power anytime in the near future. You are afraid they will retaliate if they get into power. They will retaliate regardless of what the Pubs do or don't do. Pubs have to learn how to fight as ferociously as Dems do.
He's an immature, boring hack. Who the hell cares?
I think the true conservative opinion of what the FCC should do is more along the lines of "close up shop and send the money back to the folks who earned it".
(sarcasm) Does the deal also include getting rid of 'Jerry Springer' reruns? ;P
It's something to ponder, but when it comes to Stern, he's fully aware that the fines waged against him are due to "indecency" and not "political" rants. That's precisely why he wants to move to satellite radio as soon as possible.
I personally have looked at the fines that the FCC has filed, and they all concerned "indecency", and not "politics". This past election proved that the McCain-Feingold bill was a failure for the liberals who thought it would be to their benefit, and it still should have been thrown out for its attempt to influence "political" speech.
What I'm concerned about is not "indecency", but "political" speech. If what is considered as "conservative" or "liberal" radio is deemed "indecent", I'd be worried, but this fine is based on sexual "indecency", and not "political" rants.
Unless the "indecency" laws that were written by congress long ago are overturned, the FCC is forced to investigate complaints that are "indecent". It would be true of administration.
Given that, Stern deserves to be marginalized because as what he loves to think of as his "indecent" broadcasts, he deserves the fines. I hate Stern, and I wish his radio career would sink, not because of "indecency", but because he sucks out all the liberals in hisanti-Bush tirades. Regard, Raymond, Tess, Austin, Vanessa and Raymond
That doesn't apply to this new style of Modern Day conservatism. Didn't you get the memo? Power is everything. Blackbird.
Hey Stern? You lied!!!!!! You said you was going to win the election for Kerry! What happened??????ROFLMDAO!
The FCC has no jurisdiction over Stern's new venue Sirius Satellite radio since it is not a broadcast station.
BUMP
"This is not a good thing, and the fact it is in response to Stern's antics doesn't make it a good thing. It's not just going to be the Sterns of the world who will be shut down by this kind of policy."
This is laughable. You tell me what "conservative" program would be punished by the FCC. Will that program be lascivious, lewd, and use foul language? Would a conservative program (usually they get a "Family" program rating on the TV rating system) have people calling or writing in complaining about it? Would conservative programs go out of their way even to include gratuitous violence, as well as sexual content? Of course, that assumes that there even are that many conservative programs, neutral is about the best we can wish for, as it is Hollywood producing most of them. So, what would those complaints against us conservatives be? No filth, no complaints, as I see it. So what are your fears here? That there would be complaints that the programs aren't dirty enough to be on TV? Geez. And don't bring up political content. That has never been gone after by the FCC. And if it did, then there would be a second civil war in this country. The best the Dems have been able to come up with is their old and tiresome rant about equal time (on the radio stations) as the TV stations don't have that problem (many diverse talking heads shows now, so lots of equal time given to both sides, although even there the Dems' point of view still reigns supreme on the major alphabet stations). And the Dems never get it "equal time" through Congress, and won't have any opportunity in the foreseeable future, as the Pubs are doing nothing but building on their majority.
P.S., the airwaves are allegedly "owned" by the people. And the vast majority of the "people" don't want their living rooms invaded by sleaze hiding under the guise of sophistication.
we will come to rue the day that we applauded this.
I don't like or listen to stern.
But this is CLEARLY censorship... and all the beying at each other and highfiving over this, will one day, when we are NOT in power... bite us in the butt.
At some point, complaints will be filed against conservatives for overblown exaggerations of 'hate speech' and the mouthpieces and venues of the right WILL be silenced... yup... even this website.
It is unbelievable to see conservatives cheering government developing more tools, that can and will be abused to our detriment... in our lifetimes.
And pushing this, will make it easier for us to lose power in future elections. It comes across as being overly moralistic and religious... and most americans, although we don't want graphic obscenity in public, don't like it when government tells adults what they can and cannot listen to.
This will be a short-lived victory with serious repercussions in our own, and our children's lifetimes.
funny that a controversial website of right wingers like myself, would find value in restricting others... and not see any connection whatsoever, to our own rights of speaking about things others find 'offensive', being one day, limited with the power of instant loss of rights.
wow.
So can the government censor Fox News or the NYT because these involve "interstate commerce"? The definition of "commercial" speech has typically been limited by the courts to speech involving commercial activities (advertising and the like) and some recent decisions have curtailed the the definitions. My thought is that if these decency regulations were ever challenged in court they'd have a hard time standing in light of many free speech decisions over the last 20-30 years or so.
Happy Thanks Freeping Giving to all.
You tell me what "conservative" program would be punished by the FCC.
Thank God there's some sense and foresight in this thread. The last thing I'd be doing is applauding more censorship.
Politics tends to swing from left to right and back again. At some point, you're (I'm a Brit, not a troll) not going to be in power any more and when that day comes, people like Coulter, Limbaugh and O'Reilly (if he's not in prison) will be in a very perilous position.
I thought Conservatism was about freedom from the nanny state?
for this reason alone, I am thankful for the Internet.
"under the next liberal administration... or islamist administration?
most christian speakers, most ditohead clones.
in our lifetime.
count on it, if this continues. payback will be excruciating."
Ok, now I'm getting it. You are a tad too irrational for my tastes. No logic hear, and hyperventilating (islamist administration a bit over the top, wouldn't you say?) So, wondering why we are both up at this hour anyway, I'm hitting the sack. Sweet dreams, and I want the dirt off of the air. Period. P.S., methinks you must be a Libertarian, not a conservative.
I want it on. Which one of us wins? When government controls this we have civil war, when the marketplace decides we have peace.
Apparently, it only means freedom from the liberal nanny state. The conservative nanny state is just fine.
"funny that a controversial website of right wingers like myself, would find value in restricting others... and not see any connection whatsoever, to our own rights of speaking about things others find 'offensive', being one day, limited with the power of instant loss of rights."
It amazes me how many Libertarians frequent this website. Just another Libertarian "anything goes" statement by you. Enjoy yourself. I'm tired, nitey nite.
methinks you are a statist.
as for me... lifelong republican.
of the small government variety.
applauding this reminds me of the 'ship of fools'.
what passes for conservatism these days... is ridiculous... go to bed.
"There is no peace," saith the Lord, "for the wicked."
Unless you happen to be the Lord, let him take care of it and not the government.
"what passes for conservatism these days... is ridiculous... go to bed."
HaHa. That's funny, because you aren't one (a conservative). And I'll take your advice (going to bed, that is). Thanks for the order to sleep. I will follow it.
Viacom did not get here overnight. Many allegations were pending, and more were expected, a significant number of which Viacom apparently expected to lose. Faced with being bankrupted out of existence by legal fines, Viacom copped a plea.
I don't think Viacom will go quietly into that good night however. If Stern gets suspended (sudden zombiehood not sudden death) whoever fills in for him will complain bitterly about the "censorship."
"Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people."
Ah, well that's alright then!
Good tag line, by the way, very appropriate.
"HaHa. That's funny, because you aren't one (a conservative)."
Nor is he a sheep.
Have you invested in your vice today... Enron did well for the common folk and they were the nice company... The try and true, pornography in radio, tv, magazines makes rich people over night ! Howard looses, I think 500M contract for him... He's sad surely that he lost..
My faith is in God and the people of this nation. We proved our power on Nov. 2nd. I stand on my comments.
It wont scare them after all stern is a dirtbag according to some posters on this thread and hell once the goverment gets the power to take stern off the air they will stop immediatly and never go after rush or hannity or gallager right?Whats the phrase those that dont know history are doomed to repeat it?Well I think a buttload of freeper posters need to go to the library and bury thier noses in history books for the rest of the year adn keep thier noses out of other peoples business and workplaces. The same posters that are all up in arms about the pc police stifling conservative speech are the fisrt ones up hear cheering on the fcc. and telling people to call in and complain to the fcc to get one of their political enemys silenced.Can we say hypocricy ?
Can we say hypocricy ?
My faith is in God and the people of this nation.
Their real reason is different, though . . . he's already announced that he's leaving Viacom, and they want an excuse to get him off the air before his contract expires.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.