[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?

[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.

[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.

[CalKat]

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

[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."

[Dan from Michigan]

how long will it be before the RATs gather their strength and boot Rush?

BINGO!

[novacation]

The free market is deciding. That is why he got canned on those stations.He serves no useful purpose.Pure garbage

[zook]

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

Then, together with a gang of friends, go to his studio, drag him out in the street, and beat the crap out of him.