Replies

Between the pressure & fines from the FCC and the Supreme Court upholding McCain-Feingolds "campaign finance" bill....there is alot to worry about. The US Supreme Court upheld a law that bans political speech before an election. That is scary, not Howard Stern.

If it were ClearChannel taking Howard off on their own, I have no problem with it. That is a business decision....a darn bad one seeing as how he was their top money maker....but their decision. But, ClearChannel made that decision due to fear of government reprisal. Do you think that is a step in the right direction?

It is actions like this & attitudes like yours that make people vote democrat.

If it were ClearChannel taking Howard off on their own, I have no problem with it. That is a business decision....a darn bad one seeing as how he was their top money maker....but their decision. But, ClearChannel made that decision due to fear of government reprisal. Do you think that is a step in the right direction?

Actually Rush is probably Clear Channel's biggest moneymaker, since they syndicate his program. Clear Channel on 6 stations paid Viacom to broadcast Howard.

Anyway, I don't see Howard going off the air as akin to shredding the Constitution or having the founding fathers turn in their graves.

As for CFR, I too think the poltical ad bans are awful, but they doesn't resonate with the American people who don't want to see those negative ads on TV and calling them idiots doesn't help your cause. And neither does holding up Howard as some Constitutional martyr.

Howard has nobody to blame but himself. His actions have long teetered (or crossed) the razor's edge. Part of Howard's popularity was his image as the bad guy, the man who would willingly cross the line in his bid to reign supreme in the radio world.

Howard was never fined for using his freedom of speech; Howard was fined for crossing the line. If Howard wishes to play, he's got to play by the rules. Stern has always taken great delight in pushing the boundaries as far as he could. The fact that there are repercussions for crossing that line shouldn't surprise him at this stage of his life.

Perhaps you're correct in your assertion that this will make people vote Democrat: that party has long championed the cause of violating laws and rules. Even so, allowing some to break the rules isn't a viable option in a free society.

Clear Channel is free to keep Howard on board; provided that they're also willing to pay the fines that will result when Howard steps over the line. This isn't about the government squashing free speech; it's about a business making a decision regarding a 'product' that simply refuses to abide by the law.

I listened to Howard Stern for years; I always found him to be witty but extremely childish. Finally I couldn't take it any longer and chose to switch the dial. I knew he was overboard but chose to ignore the obvious. Society has the power - nay, the responsibility - to regulate harmful behavior and/or actions.

Earlier in this thread, someone - maybe you - compared this supposed infringement of free speech to the conservative fight against Second Amendment infringement. The two aren't comparable at all. I know of no Second Amendment advocate that is willing to overlook abuses of our right to bear arms. Nobody is demanding that those choosing to use a gun in a crime, be set free to violate the law over and over.

Just as there are stipulations on the right to bear arms, there are Constitutional laws against the abuse of free speech. We have laws against slander, libel and the harmful effects of abusive speech. Society sets that fine line and Howard crossed it again and again.

I read an excellent article (perhaps on Freerepublic) on the subject of morality and freedom. The author correctly pointed out the fact that the framers of our Constitution didn't believe it possible to have freedom without morality - the two are inseparable by nature. We've all seen the effect of a morally unsound society; freedom diminishes as a result.

I'd not call Howard's supposed radio demise an impediment to freedom: instead I'd say the opposite is true. If Howard, and others, learn that their immoral actions can, and will, be held against them; society wins and freedom prevails.

Howard Stern's rights aren't being trampled, instead he has trampled on the rights of other Americans who expect, and are entitled to, a moral and a free society.

We're all free to voice our opinions, even in dissent. That freedom does not include the right to corrupt or undermine society at large.