Freedom of speech means not having to listen to Howard Stern

townhall.com ^ | 3/17/04 | Kathleen Parker

[CurlyDave]

If you do not wish to listen to Howard Stern you could change the radio station.

I firmly believe that those who do wish to listen to him should have that right. Let the free market decide.

If we manage to work ourselves into a frenzy and get Howard Stern booted off the air, how long will it be before the RATs gather their strength and boot Rush?

[Keltik]

Whatever you think of George Carlin, please don't compare him to Howard Stern.

Stern is a potty-mouthed, 50 year old juvenile delinquent.

Carlin however has occasionally showed genius ("Baseball vs. Football").

[HiramAbiff]

There won't be a Free Market if Stern is allowed to spew his anti-Bush filth on the public airwaves. Criticism of Bush is support for Terrorism. Terrorists want nothing more than to destroy our markets and Freedom of speech. Stern must be silenced in order to save our Freedoms.

[fr_freak]

If you do not wish to listen to Howard Stern you could change the radio station.

What you seem to be arguing here is that there is never a reason to enforce any moral standards in society. If you believe that society has no right to censor Stern, then you must also believe that society should not prevent hard-core pornography on network television, or any other kind of depravity, for that matter. After all, people can just change the channel. And, lest you think I am taking your case to a hyperbolic extreme, I would like to remind you that it is the same logic applied in both cases. If you would admit that having pornography on network television is a bad idea and should be prevented, then you are on the side of censorship; we only disagree on where to draw the line.

Raising no objection to the kind of mindless amoral crap that Stern regularly spews is tantamount to acceptance of it, and once our society goes down that road, how can we ever expect to have any standards of decency in any behavior? If we, as a society, refuse to place any standards of behavior on the most public of people, how can we expect anyone to behave in a civilized manner? Society cannot exist without some restraint in the individual.

I don't believe that the 1st amendment was ever supposed to protect every kind of foul speech and behavior. In fact, the founding fathers, Jefferson in particular, I believe, wrote at length on the difference between "freedom" and "license". They are not the same thing. In fact, they are probably mutually exclusive.

[Dave Elias]

"Criticism of Bush is support for Terrorism."

No it's not.

Criticism of any polititian is healthy and should be encouraged no matter what their political flavor.

Are you seriously saying that you would support Bush no matter what he did or suggested?

[entheos]

Stern took a 180 degree turn from his support of Bush's war on terrorism when he revealed that he had read Al Franken's latest book over this last Christmas vacation period. He bought into every "lie" that Al Franken wrote, and spread that misinformation as if it was his own. He even badgered one of his E! directors, Scott De Pace, to read the book because Scott was one of the few in Stern's den of inequity who would vocally support Bush and the Republican party.

This was obviously at least a month before Justin Timberlake exposed Janet Jackson's right breast to an unsuspecting Super Bowl XXXVIII audience.

His latest over-reaction to the FCC and the Bush administration has been in the works for longer than I suspect, and when he revealed that another supporter of Bush on his show, "Crazy Cabbie", had turn on Bush due to the false reports that families who lost loved ones during 9/11 were upset that Bush used images from 9/11 to begin his campaign commercials, Stern lost his mind. Stern even suggested that John Kerry or the Democrat Party use a voice over Bush's own commercial to tell the public that Bush was using a "painful" memory for political gains. This was apparently the "same" Stern that once said Americans should be reminded every day what the terrorists had done to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

So, even if Stern has a "right" to express his opposition to a political administration, "we" should have a right to oppose that view and question the person behind the opposition. Stern gave nothing to challenge his "latest" political opinion when he became so anti-Bush these past few months that I finally came to my senses and chose NOT to listen to a repeat of lies spread by the likes of Al Franken and George Soros. I can only imagine how pissed off liberals were listening to Stern support Bush's war on terrorism in days past, because like vintage Stern, he gives little say to opposing views.

I'm fed up with Stern, and I am finding that we've got a lot more sensible radio personalities out there who actually work within the bounds of decency.

Boycott Stern!

[NYCVirago]

You should check out the article link below. A Daily News columnist wrote a column Monday telling Stern to quit whining and start entertaining againt. Needless to say, Howard ripped the guy to shreds, and his fans wrote a ton of letters to the writer. But the surprising thing is how many people wrote in and said that they're sick of hearing Stern bash Bush every day. Anyhow, you should check out the followup article about this:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/174211p-151766c.html

[entheos]

Thanks for the article and the comments of the readers. As I've noted in my post, I've lost any desire to listen to Stern again after his misguided rants, and I suspect there are more listeners than myself who have become fed up with Stern. Howard Stern was one of my "guilty" pleasures that finally went awry. Granted, I don't object to his presence on the radio, but do I really need to listen to him (if I was ultra liberal) rather than the source he quotes (Al Franken)?

Boycott Stern, and the George Soros radio network!

[WhiteGuy]

Criticism of Bush is support for Terrorism.


Criticism of an elected official is exactly the speech that must be protected.

Read your copy of our Constitution.

(Those rights came from God)

[entheos]

So, you advocate listening to Howard Stern in spite of his personal attack on the George W. Bush's administration war on terror? As Rush Limbaugh wrote in the LA Times, Howard Stern will be marginalized by his criticism because his sources have become conspiracy theories from the wacky left. "We" should exercise our right to tune out such crap, and that's what I advocate. Let his ratings fall so fast, he'll worry if the WB will actually carry the Robert Schimel show. No offense to Robert Schimel as I think Robert has an absurd yet funny tale to tell, but he thought he was working with an entertainer, not a political spokes person when he signed with the Howard Stern Production company.

Boycott Stern!

[WhiteGuy]

The original poster wrote: "Stern must be silenced in order to save our Freedoms"

This is what I was responding to.

As far as tuning into Howard's Show, or not, I really don't care what anyone else does. That's everyone's right.

I can only control what I listen to.

[wku man]

"If we manage to work ourselves into a frenzy and get Howard Stern booted off the air, how long will it be before the RATs gather their strength and boot Rush?"

Absolutely 100% correct!

Absolutely 100% incorrect. The FCC's three pronged test of indecency refers to programming of a prurient nature, IOW the toilet and perverted sexual "humor" of your namesake, Bubba the Love Sponge (I now occasionally listen to 98 Rock again, now that he's gone), and myriad other cheap Stern wanna-bes. The test also makes exception for programming of political and social nature, which of course Rush, Savage, Hannity, and Boortz are, and even that buck-toothed moron Franken will be, if the enemy ever manages to get their radio network up and running. I don't think that even Klinton could spin Limbaugh into "appealing to the prurient interests", and if some Florida vote stealing 'Rat lawyer did manage to get that case heard, and some RDDB judge did manage to rule against Rush, well, let's just say it would be time to use the RKBA for what it was intended.

The national government does have a responsibility to enforce decency standards on the public airwaves, whether you agree with it or not. That's why internet and satellite radio are such wonderful developments. If you want to hear Bubba soliciting anal sex on his show, fine...pay to hear it. But not on the public airwaves, where any twit 9-year old skull full of mush can get it on his Walkman at school.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[entheos]

So, you believe Howard Stern is fighting the FCC to grant "all" of us "free" speech? When were you granted a license to broadcast over public airwaves and allowed to say anything you desire?

The government itself grants the right of broadcasters to air their material over the public airwaves, and it is paid for by "us", the taxpayers. Therefore, it is regulated because the public can exert its grievances concerning the broadcasts to their government. Are you advocating that the government turn aside the grievances of a "minority" of "indecent" complaints? Keep in mind that the grievances are NOT political in nature, but are a matter of "decency", especially in the case of Howard Stern.

Howard Stern discovered he can remain on the public airwaves if he now tilts his show toward political activism in the form of becoming a left wing radical, and it will work, because the FCC also has to acknowledge the first amendment in regards to grievances towards the government. They cannot dismiss a broadcaster because of their political views. But should conservatives applaud such a move by Howard Stern? Rather, I suggest, conservatives should boycott the move so that the advertising dollars will dwindle among those who supported him prior to his political activism. Granted, it's not a natural conservative response to support indecency, but I do believe "we" respect that if Howard Stern was on a paid media like satellite radio, regulation should be self imposed.

Once the George Soros radio network is launched, conservatives will not be able to regulate it as the new network will also maintain their first amendment priviliges with their political diatribe. My suggestion is to boycott it when possible, just like boycotting Howard Stern.

Boycott Stern and the George Soros Network!

[wku man]

Question for everyone: where in the Constitution does it say that the feral government has the right to regulate the CONTENT of radio programs?

Sorry I missed this one in my previous post. To answer you, obviously, it doesn't explicitly say it anywhere in the Constitution, because of course, the Founding Fathers could never have envisioned radio back in 1787! But for better or worse (mostly worse), the "necessary and proper" clause has been interpreted to cover a whole lot of regulations, the FCC among them. Because someone determined that the FCC was "necessary and proper" to ensure decency standards on the public ariwaves, the three pronged test was created, and is at long last being enforced against the likes of Stern, Bubba, et al. I'd much rather Cheap Channel, Citadel, Infinity and the few other remaining radio groups enforce the standards themselves, but if they don't, I say sue 'em into oblivion.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[EQAndyBuzz]

I heard that driving SUV's was support for Terrorism.

[familyofman]

I exercise my right to not listen to Howard Stern on a regular basis. I think I heard his show once about 10 years ago - and that was way too much.