Replies

I agree..what is next?

I am a huge Howard Stern fan...listened to him since I was in high school when he was on WNBC out of New York. I agree with many posters that he has lost his edge a bit since his divorce, turning into one of the very types of celebrities he always lampooned (eating at Nobu, going to the Hamptons, etc.). However, I think his show is still very funny, albeit uneven.

That being said, the dispute is not over ClearChannel's RIGHT to axe the Stern show...as a private company they certainly can do so. The concern is that they exercised that right in direct response to pressure from the F.C.C. and fear that they would be fined, punished, or potentially lose their license to broadcast (Howard's show is no more "indecent" now than it was pre-Janet Jackson's breast baring). As such, the real issue is whether we want to live in a country where the government can intimidate private broadcasters into censoring what they air. Yes, the issue here is alleged "indecency". However, there are no clearly defined or agreed upon parameters for what constitutes indecency. In my view, as conservatives we should err on the side of the text of the Constitution and support Freedom of Speech.

As previously suggested, the more important principle involved is that if the F.C.C. can pressure broadcasters into dropping Howard Stern, how much longer before the F.C.C. under a Hilary Clinton administration intimidates broadcasters into dropping Rush Limbaugh - for "homophobia" (Rush opposes gay marriages) or "racism" (He opposes quotas)? If John Kerry or Hilary Clinton becomes President, it does NOT seem that far-fetched to me.

In sum, for those who do not like Howard or his show, they can simply TURN THE DIAL - this is America.