Posted on 03/16/2004 10:01:00 PM PST by kattracks
As a big fan of the First Amendment, I'm as reluctant as anyone to urge curbs on speech. But as an even greater fan of civilization, I'm having a hard time mustering sympathy for shock jock Howard Stern, whose show has been suspended from several stations for obscenity infractions.Or to find common cause with comedian George Carlin, the "go-to guy" these days when talk-show hosts need someone to express righteous indignation about potential speech infringements.
People like Stern and Carlin have built careers out of making obscenity "funny," that is, if you're emotionally trapped in a 7-year-old boy's psyche. No offense to boys, but anyone who has served a tour of duty as a Cub Scout leader knows that those endowed with the XY chromosome find great hilarity in body functions and are prone to uncontrollable giggles upon hearing vocabulary referent to human anatomy.
Carlin is most famous for a comedy routine some 30 years ago in which he regaled audiences with the seven dirty words we're not allowed to broadcast. His point then, as now, was that censorship of certain words is a function of "religious superstition."
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
According to Stern, he is beholden to no political party, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was just to straddle the middle of the road so that he could appeal to a "larger" audience of perverts and miscreants.
Stern strongly supported Clinton in his two terms, and it still amazes me that he flatly rejected Bob Dole when it was in Bill Clinton's administration that Mel Karamazin was forced to pay off the FCC to expand Infinity. If Stern was really middle of the road, wouldn't have he "vowed" to rid Clinton of his 2nd term as President?
In any case, I no longer can put up with the hypocrisy that underlies the Stern show. By the way, do you know the political affiliations of the cast and crew?
From what I've heard over the years:
Boycott Stern and the George Soros radio network!
Since when do you have the "right" to hear smut on the public airwaves?
Well lets look at that silly First Ammendment where the founding fathers told us that "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the freedom of the press..." Now I recognize the difference between "the press" and the "public airwaves" (more on that later), but I firmly believe that the framers would have immediately recognized radio and television as part of "the press" if they had been alive at their development.
I am conservative enough to think that "no law" means exactly that--no law, no exceptions. I assure you that pornography had been invented long before 1787 and the founders gave it due consideration. And don't even think about weaseling out of it by claiming it isn't a law it is just a FCC regulation. The ammendment applies to regulations.
Just exactly where did you find an exception to the First Ammendment allowing censorship to protect the public morality? Don't the islamics have a whole branch of the police devoted to "the promotion of virtue and the prevention of vice"? Why should we have one?
don't see the connection between the Jefferson quote that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots, and your assumed right to hear smut on the radio. Please spell this out for me...remember, I'm the product of the Kentucky government schools, and therefore not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer.
You are plenty sharp, we just have different beliefs. The connection is that everything has a price. The price of liberty is the blood of patriots. One of the prices of a free press is that children will occasionally hear or see smut. The founders made this choice for us, and I believe there is more good than harm in it. As soon as we tinker with it we will produce unexpected and frequently negative results.
Now lets talk about the "public airwaves".
Could you please explain to me where in the Constitution the government is given the right to regulate them? I bet even the Kentucky government schools covered the 10th Ammendment. Read this carefully, it is quite short and specifically forbids the federal government from regulating the public airwaves. We can probably squeeze regulation of broadcast power and frequencies into the interstate commerce clauses, but we are never going to fit regulation of content in there.
I'm assuming you're an Xer, like me
I am quite a bit older than the X-ers, probably the first of the boomers.
How?
Clear Channel said that Stern violated their "Responsible Broadcasting Initiative", whatever that is. I'm ass-u-me-ing that they have a 'we say what you can say' clause in the contract, rather than give him full creative control. Otherwise, Stern could sue for full payment of the balance of the contract (4 years I believe) which he has not done. So, the lack of Howard whining about not getting paid, and the citing of some company initiative that Howard ignored lead me to believe Howard broke his contract.
http://www.clearchannel.com/documents/press_releases/20040226_Rad_Stern.pdf
"Well lets look at that silly First Amendment where the founding fathers told us that "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the freedom of the press..." Now I recognize the difference between "the press" and the "public airwaves" (more on that later), but I firmly believe that the framers would have immediately recognized radio and television as part of "the press" if they had been alive at their development."
No doubt they would have recognized the broadcast media as part of the press. But here's where your argument falls short...any study of history, and the Federalist Papers reveals that the main purpose of the free speech clause of the First Amendment was to ensure free political speech. It was included to make sure that we Americans would always be free to criticize our leaders and laws, unlike those poor, timid souls in England, who would have a date with the gallows if they dared criticize the Crown. Naturally, free speech extends beyond the political arena, and that's a great thing. But the Founders, in their wisdom, knowing that the future held developments and inventions they couldn't even dream of at that time, covered their bases by including the "general welfare" clause (which by the way, at the time was understood to mean "well being", not welfare checks and public housing) in the preamble, and the "necessary and proper" clause later in the Constitution. When combined, they gave Congress the power to, in effect, do what was necessary to ensure the general well being of the nation. Considering that the Founders placed much importance on moral values, I imagine they would have no problem with the fines to be levied against the propogators of such vile rot on the airwaves. The "general welfare" of the nation depends on kids not having their brains warped by such depraved and immature so-called programming.
Now, for continuity's sake, let's judge the RKBA by the same standard. Anti-gunners say "if the framers (they never call them Founders, implying the Constitution is a living, unfinished work in progress) had known that people would have access to (gasp!) "assault weapons", they'd never have included the Second Amendment in the Constitution." Hogwash. The purpose of the Second Amendment, as is clear to anyone who studies the Federalist Papers and other writings of the Founding Fathers, is to ensure the citizenry always have weapons necessary to prevail against the army of any tyrannical government that may come to pass. Therefore, the Founders would have encouraged us to own so-called "assault weapons", and even true assault weapons (full auto capable). But IMHO, they would have blown a fuse if they'd known their First Amendment would have been warped, twisted, obfuscated and used to justify Bubba's discussion of anal sex three-ways during morning drive. But I digress.
"I assure you that pornography had been invented long before 1787 and the founders gave it due consideration."
So does this mean public libraries should have porno mags out in the open where kids can have access to them? Should they not be covered in plastic while they sit in the mag rack at the corner Kwiki-Mart? No one's saying porno should be banned...it should be available to those who choose to pay to access it, but not out in the open to be seen (or heard) by kids, or those who are sickened and disgusted by it. But to use your side's logic, if I'm offended by it, I should just not look at it on the newsstand rack, even though Jugs Magazine is right next to my Tampa Tribune. Sorry, bro, I wholeheartedly disagree.
"Just exactly where did you find an exception to the First Amendment allowing censorship to protect the public morality?"
Refer back to the discussion of the "necessary and proper" and "general welfare" clauses. And no, there's no equating fining d*ck joke shock jocks and Saudi Arabia's morality police. The FCC isn't pushing dogma, it's enforcing standards that were once common sense.
"The price of liberty is the blood of patriots. One of the prices of a free press is that children will occasionally hear or see smut."
Okay, I see where you're going, but it doesn't quite add up. Our freedom and our nation can not survive without the periodic shedding of our blood. Whether it's a young Cav Scout on the streets of Baghdad, or a minuteman armed with a Brown Bess (maybe an AR-15 in the future?) facing down the army of a once and future tyrannical government, blood absolutely must be shed from time to time. Freedom won't survive without it. Not so with free speech. Even if the FCC starts handing out half-million dollar fines to anyone who mutters the s-word on the air, I'll still be free to call Kerry a Commie, and Bush a weenie who's afraid to close our borders and stop the invasion. Remember the purpose of the First Amendment...to protect political speech. Free speech doesn't need Stern to survive.
"Could you please explain to me where in the Constitution the government is given the right to regulate them?"
Again, refer to the two clauses. Yes, I'm very aware of the 10th, which has been largely forgotten by the rest of the nation. As to which trumps which, I guess that's a matter for the courts to decide. I guess Bubba will have to defend his spewing of vomit and trash in front of a (hopefully, but not likely) constructionist judge.
"I bet even the Kentucky government schools covered the 10th Amendment."
Sadly, no they don't. I even had AP history in high school, and we spent woefully little time on the Constitution, but plenty on Seneca Falls and Teapot Dome. What little I know about the Constitution comes from a handful of classes in college and self study. Our lack of knowledge of the rules of this game we call American self government is one of the biggest useless tragedies in our nation's history. But I'm probably preaching to the choir, aren't I?
"Read this carefully, it is quite short and specifically forbids the federal government from regulating the public airwaves."
No it doesn't. In fact it says, in essence, that all powers not expressly reserved for the national government in the Constitution are reserved for the states and for individuals. It specifically is not specific. The "necessary and proper" and "general welfare", which IIRC were cited by Congress when they created the FCC, are vital for our Constitutional government to function properly (unfortunately, they need to guided by common sense, which is in such short supply these days). Even though those clauses have been bastardized to authorize a lot of stuff the Founders would be fighting mad if they were around today to see, IMHO, the FCC is "necessary and "proper". They long ago (back when our society still maintained a modicum of sanity and morality) put in place a three pronged test to determine if programming was "good" enough to make it to the public airwaves. If the content of a show appeals to prurient interests, it violates one of those prongs, and consequently needs to go...fortunately for those who enjoy such programming, today there are pay services. If a show has social and/pr political redeeming value, it is protected, and in fact, it the exact reason why the First Amendment's free speech clause was included in the BoR.
Incidentally, were you as upset when Bush signed the CFR bill, and the SCOTUS upheld it? If you're looking for a free speech battle, there's one that has to be fought! If you want to talk about an infringement on free speech, a true violation of the First Amendment, there it is. I wish all the defenders of smut and filth would get as upset about this flagrant violation of our rights as they do when the likes of Stern and Bubba get slapped with fines for poisoning our society as the do (or did).
By the way, I have a pretty extensive background in radio. I've been an anchor, reporter, news director, DJ, talk host, producer, etc., and one day hope to start my own Internet operation. There is no bigger defender of the First Amendment than me, but I realize that with rights come responsibilities. My rights end where others' begin. I was first taught that in the third grade, but it seems as though most of my generation were either never taught this lesson, or were playing paper football in the back of the classroom when the lesson was going on.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Stern is as much a "precious resource" as your daily post-coffee "movement" every morning -- and by his standards, just as entertaining.
In SOME cases, YES -- don't we??
Real simple -- Is 'public nudity' "free speech" OR is it's restriction merely "censorship"? Same issue regarding public sex.
And in your opinion IS there such a thing as "vulgarities and obscene language"? IF there are, should a "community" or the whole community (federally speaking) have the right to establish a standard? If not, than what we have is a continuum of cultural anarchy.
"Is there anything wrong with plastering a story and pic of a GIANT penis, it's "partner" across the front page of the New York Times? (Your sentece structure seems a bit off....., but to answer your question, NO!)... There's not a thing is wrong with it..."
And HERE we have your answer to the above question -- the death of common sense.
So what we can gather from the recent "free speech/gay marriage" cultural jihad/mutiny issues, our country and American society is inevitably devolving into an Amsterdam on a large scale...
The good news hopefully will be in retaining the 2nd Amendment in place in order to voice my OWN version of "freedom of speech."
Dodge City, here we come...
You forgot the sarcasm tag.
It's clear you are from there. A troll who comes here pretending to be a conservative and then spewing moronic BS in an attempt to discredit this website. You guys are predictable if nothing else. Goodbye .
He is doing so now, from what he has said. So, the lack of Howard whining about not getting paid, and the citing of some company initiative that Howard ignored lead me to believe Howard broke his contract.
Whining? No. Talking about it daily, Yes. Clear Channel is a political tool in this, in my opinion.
In SOME cases, YES -- don't we??
No we don't
"Real simple -- Is 'public nudity' "free speech" OR is it's restriction merely "censorship"? Same issue regarding public sex.
Don't change the subject, public nudity and public sex have nothing to do with the Stern issue.
IF there are, should a "community" or the whole community (federally speaking) have the right to establish a standard?
Federally, the First and Tenth Amendments answer your question. Locally, that is another issue, but has nothing to do with the FCC and congress.
Amsterdam? hardly, but if we are honest and use our common sense, we can see that personal freedom and personal responsibility are both being eroded at am alarming pace.
I support both your rights and mine, not only as it applies to the Second Amendment, but all of our God given Freedoms.
Using the FCC to silence a voice of political dissent is wrong.
You're missing a big point with this statement. Stern is suffering from the results of his own on-air words and actions. Not the Bush-bashing, but the prurient garbage he cited (when he was still married) as his very own reason to not allow his own kids to listen to his show.
Basically, the FCC has the right and duty to discipline Stern and any other on-air "personality" who decides to violate the decency standards - which are published and available for every single shock jock to look at before they delve into the steaming pile of cr*p they call entertainment. To argue otherwise, which you appear to be doing, is to say that Stern shouldn't be held responsible for the content of his show. In fact, nobody could be held responsible - so anything, anything at all, goes.
Free speech doesn't enable one to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, nor does it enable one to spew prurient garbage on public airwaves.
"Federally, the First and Tenth Amendments answer your question. Locally, that is another issue, but has nothing to do with the FCC and congress."
The FCC and other industries have regs. Just because they failed to properly enforce them yesterday is no reason NOT to enforce them today.
And while "local" and state decency standards and code enforcement are STILL valid, the First Amendment is now what the courts say it is depending upon the interpretation of say -- the Ninth Circuit. Or haven't you gotten the memo? It's a "living, breathing Constitution."
"Amsterdam? hardly, but if we are honest and use our common sense, we can see that personal freedom and are both being eroded at am alarming pace."
YES, "Amsterdam" -- the place which epitomizes freedom and personal responsibility run amok. The "freedom" to legally indulge in ALL forms of drugs, sex with animals, minor sex, prostitution in Macy's front window, etc.
Is this what you would really consider "freedom"? At the price of moral and societal anarchy and chaos? Is this the end game that really engages "common sense"?
the main purpose of the free speech clause of the First Amendment was to ensure free political speech.
While I agree completely, to me, "no law" means exactly that. If we want to start having exceptions for public morality we need to amend the Constitution.
So does this mean public libraries should have porno mags out in the open where kids can have access to them?
No, actually I think public libraries shouldn't spend any of my tax money on porn. People should be free to buy it themselves. BTW, if you we want to make taking pictures of child porn illegal, that is perfectly fine, becasue it is deleterious to the children. How possesion of such pictures, taken by someone else, came to be illegal is also not consistent with the Constitution as it is written.
were you as upset when Bush signed the CFR bill, and the SCOTUS upheld it?
In a single word, YES. Between CFR and the AWB I am highly disappointed in President Bush. The only reason I am going to vote for him is that he recognizes the danger islamics represent to our country and Kerry does not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.