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 ...
Again, I don't think it would be beneficial to ban Howard Stern through government means, but to hurt his ratings so that his employer loses interest him, that would be GREAT!
Boycott Stern and the George Soros network!
Boycott Stern and the George Soros Network!
You're not series right?
Freedom of speech should not be infringed in any way. Stupid people, liberals, fascists, communists, and the like all have freedom of speech as much as we do; thats reality....thats just the way it is. The whole "Criticism of Bush is support for Terrorism" mantra is just borderline fascism. I criticize Bush for some of the things that he has done/not done. I guess that makes me a terrorist too; I suppose I'll have to wait for your gulag to serve me my papers. No matter...they'll be met by the barrel of one of my firearms if that ever happens. Please, please...stop the 'Bot'/groupthink ideology before it comes back to bite you in your arse. Freedoms are freedoms...even for the people we don't necessarily agree with. And lets get one thing straight...conservative criticism of Bush and outright leftist HATRED of Bush are two very different things; no matter what the bots are telling you. What you are suggesting is no better than fascism/liberalism. I thought the liberals were the ones who are all for freedom of speech...as long as it is their speech. You should know better than that.
"bubba love child Since Mar 17, 2004"
Good grief, why don't I check these things first? First of all, newbie, you have a lot of gumption calling a five year veteran of FReep a dork on your first freakin' day on the forum. Second of all, what's your background, specifically in the Cav? As the saying goes, "if you ain't Cav, you ain't s**t", and if you ain't Cav, don't let a mean ol' crotchety scout like me, cavtrooper21 or even worse, ALOHARONNIE, catch you using our rallying cry. "Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!" is a right that one earns with service to the nation in the US Cavalry, not some cute little catch phrase for civilians who don't know squat to parrot.
In the same vein, insulting fellow FReepers is a right earned over time, and with a growing collection of cyber scars, gained in battles with DU disruptors too numerous to mention. Newbies should be properly humble and recognize loudly and often that they're nothing but worms crawling beneath the feet of those of us who have blazed the trail for them. Go off and suck your thumb in a dark corner for a year or so, then maybe we'll allow you to ask us to pass the salt or something. 'Nuff said.
Now to deal with your substantive rantings, which actually lack substance.
I didn't ask you if the FCC thinks it has the right to silence Stern. I asked you the following:"
I know what you asked, and I answered you in my second post to you. The "necessary and proper clause", also known as "the elastic clause", has been used to enact mucho regulation, the FCC included. Somewhere, someone decided that with the newly invented medium of radio, the government had a responsibility to ensure that the public airwaves, meaning those which can be intercepted free of charge by the public, should maintain a standard of decency. You may not like it, but that's just the way it is.
Also, satellite and the Internet, which you cite as "wonderful" exceptions to your Fascistic support of the FCC, are public. Satellite even operates via radio waves!!! Dork. So, what's your stupid point? Your "public" distinction is moot."
Ah yes, when you can't defeat someone's argument, call them names. How liberal of you, newbie. Let me ask you, do you know the definition of "moot"? Do you know the definition of "public"? Are you aware that one must pay a subscription fee Sirius, XM and every ISP in the land in order to access them? Yes, you did manage to get one thing right...satellite radio carriers uses the same airwaves to transmit their signal as do broadcast companies. But, and I'll say this very slowly, so even you can understand, they're e-n-c-r-y-p-t-e-d. That means there's a code embedded in the signal that makes it impossible to successfully capture without having the proper equipment (IOW, not a Walkman), and having the service initiated from the carrier's central office. So, since these companies charge a fee for their services, how are they "public"? If one cannot access their programming without special equipment and the permission of the company itself (subscription), how is it "public"? I guess that's my "stupid point". Don't you hate it when logic, common sense and a little education get in the way of your ad hominem tirades, newbie?
"As far a "decency" goes, who's standards are you going to enforce?"
Are you really going to make me say it again? Okay, here goes, one more time, slowly so you can understand...ahem...THE-FCC-HAS-A-THREE-PRONGED-TEST-TO-DEFINE-DECENCY. Like it or not, those are the standards that are finally being enforced. I doubt you're familiar with the three pronged test, but if you're interested enough, and posess the mental faculties to do the research, you can find out for yourself that
1) Your boy Bubba, Stern, Opie and Anthony, and a whole slew of cheap Stern imitators are in violation of that test, because their drivel appeals to prurient interests, and
2) Rush, Savage, Mark Larson, Glenn "Oprah" Beck, and all other political/social/current affairs talk hosts are specifically allowed under that same test, because their shows have political and social value. I gather you don't know much about broadcasting, do you? You might try educating yourself and developing some critical thinking skills before you open your mouth again, newbie.
,i>"Where in the Constitution does is say the government has the right to regulate speech on public airwaves? Where?"
Man, are you really that dense? Not only have I already answered that question for you, but not I have to do it again. I'll make it a little challenging for you this time, though. Question one...when was the Constitution written? Question 2...when was radio invented? Now here's the tricky part, where you have to draw a conclusion based on the data...if the Constitution was written when it was was, and radio was invented when it was, would the Founding Fathers have been able to explicitly address the public airwaves in said Constitution? To follow your line of (il)logic, nothing that has been invented since 1787 can be regulated by the government, because it wasn't specifically addressed in the Constitution. Let me guess...you sat in the back of the classroom in school, didn't you?
"And as far as your kid goes, he shouldn't be listening to a Walkman at school. And if you don't like what your kids are listening to on the radio, try beiing a responsible parent and monitor what they're listening too."
I don't have kids, but if I did, you'd better believe they'd not listen to Bubba. But here's the thing...what parent is around his/her kid 24-7? How does any parent know what little Johnny or Suzie are doing at school? I was raised in a very strict household, with good moral values (that I finally started taking seriously somewhere around 28 or 29), and I still did a whole lot of crap when I was out of my parents' direct supervision that they'd have killed me if they had known about. Are you really going to try to tell me you were the perfectly behaved little kid, who always came right home after school, never sneaked a cigarette at a buddy's house, never accidentally broke a neighbor's window with a wrist rocket and then ran, etc? If so, I congratulate you on being the perfect kid. I wouldn't believe it, though. Kids are kids, and 90% will try to get away with things their folks tell them not to do, just to test their boundaries if nothing else. Just try to keep a kid from getting an "illegal" Walkman, and listening to whatever on the bus ride back from school...can't be done.
"Stop blaming "society" and start minding your own business."
Yeah, I was a Libertarian once, too. Then I stopped smoking weed and got better.
"I haven't listened to him for over 4 years because he's disgusting and stupid."
But you like Bubba so much you named yourself after him. Sorry, newbie, I'm not convinced.
"Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!"
Again, unless you are a Cavalry Scout, or are a Scout Pilot, you haven't earned the right to use our expressions. That can be rectified, though. Go see your recruiter, and sign up to be a real man, a 19D Cavalry Scout. Get your head shaved (if it isn't already), put on the uniform of the United States Army, and give 3-4 years of service to this nation of ours as a Scout. Of course, you'll have to take out your earrings, your tongue stud, your nostril, eyebrow, chin, shoulder, nipple, bellybutton and any other rings you may have, and you'll actually have to (brace yourself, this will hurt!) work, and put out some physical exertion. But I have faith in you, newbie. The Cav can make a man out of damned near anyone, probably even you.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Okay, I've already violated my self-imposed exile from FReep, but I'm just sick and tired of these whining, crybaby Xers and Generation.commers complaining that the government doesn't have the responsibility to regulate the public airwaves. They sure as hell do! As a former radio guy who left in disgust at what was happening to my industry, I applaud what the FCC is doing, and will continue to do so as long as they honor their own standards, and stick to fining the pants off the likes of Stern, and leave legitimate broadcasters like savage and Limbaugh alone. They have enough of a battle brewing over this CFR travesty.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Is this what they call a "troll"??
Why are we so comfortable with the concept that "the tree of liberty must be watered with blood" periodically, and completely uncomfortable with the idea of a very small percentage of children hearing something of a sexual nature? This is the free speach equivalent.
Why should anyone have the right to force their own sexual repression on me? No, I don't even listen to Stern, the stations here don't carry him. OTOH, I probably would if they did, just to relieve the boredom of the 20 mile traffic jam between home & work.
Have you ever listened to the rap "music" the kids like today. No there is real indecency and obscenity--Howard Stern is mild in comparison. This cr@p comes over the public airwaves every day and the move to ban it is feeble compared to the forces against Stern.
I don't believe this. Our president is just a man and was put into power by the voting public, nothing more and nothing less.
"Again, no one is suggesting violating Stern's Free Speech rights
YOU are.
"The FCC should shut Stern down."
Then you said:
"We own the FCC people. We own Congress and we own the Supreme Court. We should not be afraid of using them."
Listen to you, do you realize what you are suggesting? Let be define it for you.
fas·cism n.
1. often Fascism 1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship. 2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
I can't believe that you actually believe what you are saying. You're just trying to get an argument started, which is ok with me, that's your right.
However if you are indeed advocating the "use" of the government to circumvent our rights,then you are a frightening individual.
You claim Mr. Stern is spreading lies and seditious filth against President Bush.
You must be a regular listener, please cite what you've heard.
On the issue of "the war on terror", did you see the coalition troops had a major victory yesterday?
That's right! I saw a story on the evening news.
They showed a "typical" peasant family crouching in their hut, and guess what? Our brave soldiers were hooking up a TV for them. (A nice TV too!)
Meanwhile, our enemies blew the snot out of a couple thousand people in Spain.
Help me to see how we're fighting "the axis of evil" by supplying cable and broadband to those nice muslims.
Dan
Bill Clinton will never have any problems, then -- he always cares what people think of him, and I need hardly point out his facility at wrestling with definitions.
Slick wouldn't be my first choice of a political role model, but if that's what floats Ms Parker's boat....
As long as the airwaves remain in the public domain,
If the airwaves were in the public domain, then anyone who cared to do so could tape radio broadcasts and sell the tapes. In reality, I don't recommend doing so, or at least getting caught doing so.
the public has a right through its government to stifle the profane rants and juvenile outbursts of our lesser-evolved brethren. Ain't democracy grand?
It would seem that Ms Parker slept through the explanation of why the Founders explicitly rejected "democracy" in favor of "consitutitional republicanism", or (more likely given her apparent age) went to a school where this subject was not taught.
This is the level of abysmal ignorance I would expect from the DUmpster dwellers, not here.
You're in a public park and here someone shouting the F word repeatedly it's appropriate to tell him to shut up or have policeman do it.
It is never appropriate to shut someone up for expressing a political view.
That's not what I meant. My reference to fascism was in response to your statement that the power of the government be used to silence Howard Stern. I was questioning whether or not you believed that such an act was in accord with our rights. It certainly seemed to me that what YOU were suggesting smacked of Fascism. I was not suggesting that our government was engaged in an act of fascism. I do believe that the policy being pursued by our elected officials IS politically motivated and has the purpose of silencing the voice of dissent.
You suggested that I espoused that Howard had the right to be heard. Again, I believe you misunderstood. While it can be argued that no one has the right to be heard, isn't it a company's right to broadcast? Infinity Broadcasting has been given approval by our beloved government to do just that!
I believe that there is a great deal more at stake here than whether or not Howard Stern can talk about sex and make fart jokes over the airwaves.
You know, we do agree on one thing...............
We both can see that the FCC is being used to effectively eliminate the airing of a voice of opposition to the president.
Where we disagree is that you think it's good, and I don't.
My interest in radio has waned over the last couple of decades. My interest in video/TV never existed. Still, I heard of a couple of guys a year or so ago claim they could receive satellite radio over their Icom R3.
Granted, they probably modified it in a manner that nearly nobody else would do and possibly incorporated parts from a legitimate whatever-company receiver.
I’ve seen them take a brand new $8,000 receiver out of the box and start hacking away at it, so it isn’t something they’d be reluctant to do. The R3 is pretty impressive as far as micro-miniature electronics goes so you don’t want somebody like me digging around in there.
I know for a while they could also receive satellite TV, but don’t know what gimmick they used to do it.
So, since these companies charge a fee for their services, how are they "public"? If one cannot access their programming without special equipment and the permission of the company itself (subscription), how is it "public"?
I know it doesn’t address public/not public – in fact the act of breaking those frequencies from the public domain and reserving them for commercial use sort of makes that point moot. But anyway there was a group at one time more-or-less led by a guy named Bill Cheek. He’s dead now but his contention (and he had many prolonged encounters with the FCC) was that whether you’re a hobbyist or commercial or military entity, if you radiated a signal that passed in and to and through his property or person, he had the *right* to capture it, record or otherwise store it, descramble/decrypt/decode it, and view or listen to it.
In fact, one of the last communications I heard from him made it sound like his strategy was going to be that since you’re signal is passing into and through his brain, heart, pancreas, bladder, etc, it was a medical necessity that he know various things about that signal including its strength, mode of transmission, frequency, and what information or data was contained therein.
It didn’t get far though. He was diagnosed with lung cancer a little later and dug in pretty quickly.
Prior to that the argument typically was that the companies were using their property and person to conduct business without compensating them. That got about as far as you’d expect it to…
I hadn’t thought of that guy in quite a while but he’s a prime example of someone who’s been fined, had licenses revoked, had equipment seized, and even been in court facing charges of various types, all courtesy of the FCC and their regulations.
Just pointing it out because the “if you don’t like it, change the channel” crowd doesn’t have the first clue. It’d be equivalent to saying that you don’t have to provide a 36” walkway at work – “if you don’t like our 28” walkway, go someplace else to work.” It sounds nice but OSHA sees things differently. They can mandate that you provide it and start slapping fines on you for each and every day you don’t, etc.
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.