To: Indy Pendance
I'm on Howard's side.
Not the censor's side.
12 posted on
02/25/2004 4:41:40 PM PST by
billorites
(freepo ergo sum)
To: billorites
You're on Howard's side.... when a bunch of 8 year olds listen to him on the school bus every day?
51 posted on
02/25/2004 5:01:43 PM PST by
MindBender26
(For more news, first, fast and factual.... Stay tuned to your local FReeper station !!!)
To: billorites
"Not the censor's side."
This isn't censorship, it's Clear Channel deciding that they don't want to take the risk of carrying his show on the radio stations they own. It's property rights. Howard is STILL free to speak - but no one owes him their soapbox.
177 posted on
02/25/2004 6:20:13 PM PST by
adam_az
(Be vewy vewy qwiet, I'm hunting weftists.)
To: billorites
are you also on farakahn's side?
235 posted on
02/25/2004 7:18:15 PM PST by
cnote55
To: billorites
of course though the "right wing" gets blamed and taking the country back statement.
468 posted on
02/26/2004 7:07:32 AM PST by
olde north church
(American's aren't more violent, we're just better shots!!!)
To: billorites
Will the FCC crack down on violence inciting rap 'music' in the same fashion? I won't hold my breath..
To: billorites
>>I'm on Howard's side. Not the censor's side.<<
The censor in this case is the station owner. The program, the money for operating the program, and the equipment used to broadcast the progarm ALL belong to the station owner.
Meaning that, like any other employer in the US, the station owner has the right to tell Stern (the employee so to speak) what the owner wants done with his property.
Any other employee in America risks being disciplined or fired if they refuse to comply with the employer's decisions relative to running a business.
THIS is how this should work and I'm glad it is working that way in Stern's case.
It would be wrong to ask the government come in and shut down Stern's speech because if the government can do it to Stern, they can next shut down Rush Limbaugh because someone is offended by his speech.
THIS is how it should not work.
Anyone who doesn't like Stern's show (and I am one such person) has the duty and obligation to get out there and complain to Clear Channel, Stern's advertisers, and other people to educate them and garner more support against Stern.
Most of us are either too lazy to do these things or can't get together cohesively as a group or movement. In other words, it is so much easier for many of us to cry to Big Daddy Government to make bad boys like Howard Stern go away. Then we are shocked when Big Daddy Government turns around and tells us to shut up, too.
Again I'm glad Clear Channel took the lead (thanks to Janet Jackson's naked nipple) and things are moving along the Right way.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson