Stern Threatens To Quit If Bush Signs Indecency Bill

FMQB ^ | March 11, 2004

[GulliverSwift]

The Howard Stern saga continues. Although Infinity is saying they will stand by their man, Stern is threatening to quit anyway if President Bush signs new indecency legislation into law. On this morning's show, Congressman Gary Ackerman called in to discuss the bill and assure Stern that he would not sign it. Ackerman said the vote on the bill is happening today, and that he feels it will easily pass through the right wing-controlled House but that the Senate may veto it. (The bill passed in the House this afternoon, see separate story.) Stern replied by saying that if Bush signs the bill, he will resign as soon as it becomes a law. In fact, he went as far as to say that he's so tired of getting censored every morning that he may resign anyway, even if the bill isn't signed by Bush. Stern lamented that he just wants to do comedy his way, and radio has become too much of a battle.

While he could just be saying that out of anger and frustration, Stern reiterated that FCC sources have told him that Chairman Michael Powell wants him off the air, whether it be now or after the next presidential election, and he dared Powell to issue his indecency fines now instead of waiting until after the election. He also made the point that he believes his suspension by Clear Channel was directly related to him denouncing President Bush in the past few months, rather than specific incidents of indecency.

While Infinity is insisting that Stern won't be gone anytime soon, he said on the air today he has not ruled out the idea of going to satellite radio. However, he feels that satellite companies are not prepared to quickly manufacture the number of radios that would be needed to accommodate all of his fans that would want to buy them, should he decide to make that move. Stern believes that only about 50,000 receivers are ready to go and the demand could be up to 5 million, and that they don't have the technology to roll out the equipment fast enough.

However, an Infinity source told Radio Business Report that the satellite move won't happen. "He's not going to satellite," said the source. "First of all, he can't. He's under contract with us for two more years. So it's not even an issue... we're going to defend him."

[isthisnickcool]

I am sure you lingred to watch the whole show so you can disapprove of it with conviction.

No. I only watched enough to figure out what they heck they were doing. Once I did figure it out I didn't find it too interesting. I might have if I was 12 years old.

[Captiva]

why stop the heathens from their own demise? we can tell them what's right and wrong but we can't stop them.

[rpage3]

As I've said before, a good book says, and by "good book" I mean this one:

http://www.doubletakebook.com

Howard Stern, King of all media
Should quit while he's still the leader
And retire to his bed
....

Oh, if I say the rest, this post will be deleted! Heh!

[paul51]

LOL. You seem to be a little too familiar with this!

[Captiva]

Like Stern never changes his mind?

King of All Media changes his mind relentlessly and is one of the biggest hypocrites around.

[Destro]

To clarify the last part beacue I wrote it poorly: Currently, the FCC can declare anything it wants as indecent without recourse of a court of law review of the fine. - which I consider a tyranny.

[Destro]

To clarify the last part beacue I wrote it poorly: Currently, the FCC can declare anything it wants as indecent without recourse of a court of law review of the fine. - which I consider a tyranny.

[Life is Sacred]

The content of Stern's show is considered obscene by an overwhelming majority of Americans. And I'm sorry to inform you but the constitution affords no "right" for anyone to broadcast obscenity over the airwaves.

What gives? Exactly why are you promoting this non-existent right anyway?

[FreeReign]

I am all for FCC having rules to enforce but those rules should come from congress, be written in law and be defined. The FCC can declare anything ot wants as indecent without recourse of a court of law review of the fine.

I agree.

[dinok]

"The unalienable right to the expression of porn on property that's not yours.

Cool."

You are hopeless. I would trade porn I can turn off with the switch over Hillary with the powers we have given the excecutive branch anyday.

I hate to say this, but this obscecion with banning porn is getting old.

[rwfromkansas]

Nope.

[Destro]

To clarify the last part since I wrote it poorly: Currently, the FCC can declare anything it wants as indecent without recourse of a court of law review of the fine. - which I consider a tyranny.

do you still agree?

[NYCVirago]

To clarify the last part beacue I wrote it poorly: Currently, the FCC can declare anything it wants as indecent without recourse of a court of law review of the fine. - which I consider a tyranny.

That's a fair point.

[Dustbunny]

Bye bye Howard.

It is about time they cleaned up radio. Now they need to clean up the cable and satellite broadcasts.

[Mulder]

The content of Stern's show is considered obscene by an overwhelming majority of Americans.

So don't watch it. Surely you can find something on one of the 500 other channels to watch.

And I'm sorry to inform you but the constitution affords no "right" for anyone to broadcast obscenity over the airwaves.

So what are you going to do when future AG Sptizer declares Limbaugh, Hannity, and Alex Jones to be "obscene"?

On a side note, the Constitution doesn't "afford" any Rights. The Constitution 1) merely enumerates some Rights, but not all, and 2) grants specific powers to the federal government.

For example, I have a Right to travel from point A to point B within the United States. I also have the Right to walk down my street without getting mugged or killed. Just because those things aren't in the Constitution doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Empireoftheatom48]

Bye bye Jerk!!

[Life is Sacred]

"and that is exactly as it should be.

Oh yes and I bet you're so proud of the sexual predators who get their inspiration from porn.

Tell me Paulson, why do libertarians and liberals bend over backwards to defend pornography anyway?

[FreeReign]

"The unalienable right to the expression of porn on property that's not yours. Cool."

You are hopeless. I would trade porn I can turn off with the switch over Hillary with the powers we have given the excecutive branch anyday.

I never said that the FCC of the executive branch should regulate pornography on the public airwaves. I am glad it's being done through the legislative process.

Their is no unalienable right to the free expression of porn in public and your support of such is hopeless.

[FreeReign]

To clarify the last part since I wrote it poorly: Currently, the FCC can declare anything it wants as indecent without recourse of a court of law review of the fine. - which I consider a tyranny. do you still agree?

Absolutely.

[Life is Sacred]

"So what are you going to do when future AG Sptizer declares Limbaugh, Hannity, and Alex Jones to be "obscene"?

Well for starters - you're jumping to conclusions. Secondly, I would vigorously oppose such a measure. You see Mulder, political commentary and discussion of issues, are clearly not the same as "pornography". They don't ruin the innocence of children or destroy marriages or cause people to commit rape. Your arguement is foolish but you go ahead and defend Stern, Flynt, Hefner...