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."

[LibLieSlayer]

Those b*st*rds! ;-)

LLS

[dinok]

"II 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."

A. The "legislative process will give government burocrats at the FCC the power to monitor as they see fit and impose fines. Who do you think Hillary and Janet Reno would fine? Stern or Rush and Savage?

B. Associating me with the right to express porn is pathetic on your part and just a tool to minimise my argument which you can not defeat with logic. I think the Clintons were real good at attacking people whose argument they would not defeat. Congrats...you joined their type.

[Keeper of the Turf]

Your arguement is foolish but you go ahead and defend Stern, Flynt, Hefner...

And they bring up that foolish arguement over and over and over again.

[Mulder]

They don't ruin the innocence of children or destroy marriages or cause people to commit rape

If Howard Stern (or any one else for that matter) is capable of destroying a marriage, then that marriage was doomed from the start.

Perhaps if couples spent more time working on *their* marriage instead of trying to control what everyone else did, the divorce rate wouldn't be so high.

your arguement is foolish but you go ahead and defend Stern, Flynt, Hefner...

"Playboy" causes rape?

If that's the case, then 95% of American males are rapists.

[FreeReign]

A. The "legislative process will give government burocrats at the FCC the power to monitor as they see fit and impose fines. Who do you think Hillary and Janet Reno would fine? Stern or Rush and Savage?

Your above statement is pathetic. It is unconstitutional for the legislative branch to give power to the executive branch. It can't do that!

B. Associating me with the right to express porn is pathetic on your part and just a tool to minimise my argument which you can not defeat with logic. I think the Clintons were real good at attacking people whose argument they would not defeat. Congrats...you joined their type.

So then, let the record show that dinosk believes that there is no unalienable right to the free expression of porn in public.

[dinok]

"It is unconstitutional for the legislative branch to give power to the executive branch. It can't do that! "

What world do you live in? They have done it for ages...where do you think the different agencies get their authority to regulate? You think OSHA is in the constitution? The congress created it, placed it under the executive branch and gave it the power to fine and shut down companies if they see fit.

I will ignore your last comment...you embarrassed your self.

[ConservativeMan55]

Vanity w/pics! We saw Sean Hannity tonight!

[BigSkyFreeper]

I always hated long good byes.

[SendShaqtoIraq]

""the dems twisted rico laws to go after christian groups over the freedom of speech to protest abortion... and did it successfully..."

Overturned by the USSC

[FITZ]

Not even as much shocking as just disgusting --- a fading pop star trying to get attention for herself (record sales) in front of football fans who didn't go there and bring their kids there to see that.

[Robert_Paulson2]

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

---

Lots of liberals are very very big on censoring everything, from magazines to commercials they find offensive. In fact, they really obsess over the objectification of women in fashion mags, and frequently equate it to pornography as well. Liberals want government to control what every body else is doing...

As for libertarians, I dunno that they do what you say... why don't you go ask one of them? I registered republican decades ago, and have never voted any other way.

Why do socialists claiming to be conservatives, want government to regulate everything they don't approve of other people doing and then try to justify it with straw man arguements about phony cause and affects?

such as: guns cause gun crimes, cell phones cause car accidents, along with the help of SUV's, and all the other baloney "correlations" that are made up out of whole cloth.

like I said, I don't listen to Stern.
I do enjoy turning him off.
I don't like gangsta rap either, it's violent, immoral and the talent level sucks.... I turn it off too.

I find it a waste of time and resources to obsess over constantly trying to find ways to restrict the free choices that others have been given the privilege of making on their own. Even if I find their choices to be offensive to my own morals. And I find no need to empower government to do it for me at my expense either.

Self control is the GREAT subset of self government.
this bill won't pass into law.
stern will quit when his audience dries up... and not until.

[Robert_Paulson2]

did you know that over 80 percent of car theives have looked at CAR and Driver, Motor Trend or Hot Rod magazines?

9/10 car theives also wear cheap underwear and have had a glass of milk in their lifetime too?

pretty scary huh...
we need to get the government to look into those "solid as a brick of >ahem< " correlations because there is no escaping these proven links!

watch out for those folks who wear cheap underwear while going to the store, buying milk and a Motor Trend mag... they may be planning to steal your car!

[Robert_Paulson2]

Liberal feminists claim that all males are rapists.
they have data you know...

I got some data too.
9 out of 9.5 liberal feminists are also ugly as a rotting potato.

They also frequently join with the socialist conservative females to try and censor not only the usual suspects, but mags like Cosmo, W and Glamour.

pathetic.

[Dan from Michigan]

We should have nothing to be celebrating today.

BINGO.

Get a few leftist FCC folks there, and guess what.

WE'RE NEXT!!!

[Robert_Paulson2]

Why would I be proud of criminals? Or their illegal acts of violence?

ridiculous.
perhaps you should try to censor yourself before you invest a lot more effort in the censorship of others.

[Dan from Michigan]

What could be in an "indecency bill" that would impact Rush?

Considering that AOL considers pro-2nd amendment organizations porn........

I'm sure some leftist govt hacks will find something if they have the chance.

[Dan from Michigan]

You see Mulder, political commentary and discussion of issues, are clearly not the same as "pornography

YOU say it isn't porn. That doesn't matter. If unelected bureaucrats at the FCC say it is though, and with some Reno types there, they could, it's then 'porn'.

AOL says the 2nd amendment is porn, so there is some precident.

[Dan from Michigan]

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

Sexual predators are thugs. No one or no thing forced them to make their decisions. They chose to do the actions they did by using force on another illegally and should be locked up for life

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

I have a libertarian streak in me and am oftentimes a 'libertarian republican'. I don't defend porn, nor waste my money on it. I'm against government thuggery by the Janet Renos of the world.

I've seen cases of the 2nd amendment being called porn by AOL and their sites being kicked off of their servers. I can EASILY see the same thing happening again here, particulary when the FCC then adds 'hate speech' fines, and also adding the internet to it. How long before they go after Free Republic, GOA, NRA, etc?

Especially if you put a Nazi like a Henry Waxman in power on the FCC.

[Robert_Paulson2]

They (waxman's crew) would claim that any criticism of the gay death style is obscene and offensive speech. Or criticism of tax hikes, or expansion of government programs... And given the chance they will do just that.

I am not a libertarian, but there are a lot of fiscal conservative pubbies who lean that way, just because they want smaller government... and less centralized power...

This is because power is known to corrupt.

And the power to determine who can, and who cannot speak has a real tendency to corrupt in greater measure. The founders were wise to recognise the freedom of speech, NOT just political speech... as they could foresee folks using "this type" or "that type" of definitions, to restrict the free flow of ideas. Even ideas that we may not like personally.

The democrats twisted those "fair use" laws and "copyright" laws to clamp down on our free speech here at freerepublic during the clintong years... I guess some folks just don't remember.