Freedom of speech means not having to listen to Howard Stern

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

[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."

[NYCVirago]

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.

I still can't believe Howard is saying with a straight face that Clear Channel fired him because of his political views. If anybody's responsible for his current predicament, it's Janet Jackson, not George W. Bush. If I were conspiracy-minded, I would say that Howard saw the writing on the wall after the Super Bowl and deliberately started bashing Bush on his show just so Bush could be held responsible for Stern getting in trouble.

[entheos]

I think I already admitted my "abysmal" ignorance by revealing that I listened to Howard Stern.

Perhaps I should have written that the FCC issues licenses to broadcast over FM and AM radio as a privilege. If I opted to broadcast without a license, my pirated broadcasts wouldn't last.

I'm not advocating censorship. I'm advocating that radio broadcasts worthy of censure be tuned out.

Boycott Stern and the George Soros radio network!

[Tribune7]

I took from your original post that you would not object to government action to silence Stern's political views. Clear Channel obviously has a right to fire Stern, and consumers have a right to boycott advertisers to force his removal.

The government has no right to try to silence Stern for his political views.

[HiramAbiff]

"The government has no right to try to silence Stern for his political views."

A radio show is a privledge, not a right. How many communist radio programs are there? How many "Worker's World" TV advertisements do you see on network TV? During a time of War the government not only has the right but it has the duty to make sure what is going out on the airwaves does not harm the war effort.

If you are worried about tit for tat, the best way to prevent the Commies from going after Rush is to prevent them from winning elections. Which means redistricting, shutting down ethics investigations, propaganda, push pulls, character assinations and silencing the opposition. Every ounce of power we now have needs to be brought to bear on this election. All of which we are effectively doing right now. We have already shut Stern down on CC. It is just a matter of time before we make it "financially uncomfortable" enough for Infinity to continue its relationship with that traitor.

[Tribune7]

A radio show is a privledge, not a right.

So, you are saying the government should try to silence Stern for his political views?

[Pietro]

"Let the free market decide."

The free market has decided. Clear Channels booted stern not the FCC. It's Clear Channels right to decide what program will go out under their name.

[HiramAbiff]

If not the government, than private interests who are sympathetic to our cause. It doesn't matter to me as long as the traitor is shut up.

[TOUGH STOUGH]

The government has a right to shut Stern up for his expressions of profanity and obscenity; they do not have a right to silence him for his political views.

[Tribune7]

The government has no right ever to shut anyone up for his political views. A lot of good men gave their lives to establish this principle. Suppose if Kerry wins and he goes after Rush or Hannity?

[HiramAbiff]

However they want to justify it is fine with me. The point is that we should be applauding the fact that Clear Channel dumped the guy and that the Infinity Network is next (as long as we keep the pressure on). For 50 years we have been whim of the liberal media - Now, for the first time, we finally have some weapons in the form of Murdoch and Clear Channel. No more are we at the mercy of the Commies. The Liebral Media was never afraid to use their advantages, we shouldn't be afraid to use ours.

[HiramAbiff]

"Suppose if Kerry wins and he goes after Rush or Hannity?"

That is exactly why we can't lose this election. Even more argument to shut Stern the hell up.

[WhiteGuy]

Our cause?

Define you is included in "OUR"

[Fire137]

Because I grew up in New Jersey I have listened to Howard for years. Interestingly enough when Tipper Gore pushed for changes in record labeling to give content warnings similar to movie ratings, Howard blasted her and Al Gore as being right wing religous zealots. Howard has been fined and had FCC rulings against him multiple times. Each time you could hear the content of his show "tone down" But lately his ratings have plummeted and he is no longer drawing the audience he once was. Truthfully I stopped listening about 3 years ago because he just was not really funny or entertaining anymore. Actually I think Howard is more consevative than most people think. He has a right to carry permit and blasted Rosie O'donnel for weeks after her anti-gun tounge lashing of Tom Selleck on her "Talk Show". Also he backed Christine Todd Whitman twice for governor but now he is mentally imploding by blaming conservatives and George Bush.

[CalKat]

When did anyone ever HAVE to listen to Howard Stern or George Carlin?

[Peach]

And just where did Curly Dave indicate that people would HAVE to listen to Howard Stern or George Carlin?

[Hacksaw]

Yeah, I was a Libertarian once, too. Then I stopped smoking weed and got better.

LOL

[F16Fighter]

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

And should we also let the "free market" dictate whether midget porno gets aired at 8:00 PM?

You freakin' people make me laugh. Hook yourself up with cable or online to get yourself off, and find yourself a REAL crusade.

Where is the dignity in going to the mat for scumbags like Stern who would just as soon defecate on your mother/sister/daughter to "entertain" YOU?

And yet -- I guess for some of you THAT would be regarded as "free speech."

[jwalsh07]

Consider the public airways and the tragedy of the commons. But don't consider it too long because it doesn't apply. The broadcast spectrum is a special case. Howard can dump all the dung he wants on the hardwired and satellite stuff.

He and Kerry deserve each other, two whining 50 somethings.

[PRND21]

He and Kerry deserve each other, two whining 50 somethings

Bump for Victimhood.

[WhiteGuy]

Riddle me this Batman....................

Do you believe that a radio, TV, or other media outlet has the right to broadcast what they wish?

How about newspapers and book publishers?

Any opinion on websites or ISP's?

Just wondering.................