[HiramAbiff]

"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.


However if you are indeed advocating the "use" of the government to circumvent our rights,then you are a frightening individual."


Let me see if I can understand your argument:

You seem to be saying that taking Howard Stern off the air is "using the government to circumvent our rights" and an act of Fascism.

Let me first point out that the according to the above definition of Fascism, centralized authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls and using censorship and terror to oppress the opposition are ALL necessary adjuncts of Fascism. In other words all these conditions are required to be present in a system of government if one is to denote this system of government "Fascist".

Since the act of removing Howard Stern from the public airwaves would be the action of the FCC and not a "dictator", would have in no way place stringent controls on the econcomy and would in no way be an act of "terror" we can conclude that this act could in no way be called "Fascist".

Second, in order for the removal of Howard Stern to be an act of "censorship" and "using the government to circumvent our rights" you have to presuppose that, as American citizens, we all have a right to a radio program that reaches 8 million people a week.

I do not find that right enumerated anywhere in the Constitution of the United States nor in the Declaration of Independence nor in the Bible nor has it ever been claimed as an "inalienable right". For you to imply that every citizen has that right is a priori silly.

Freedom of Speech does not imply a "Right to be Heard". Period.

[WhiteGuy]

You seem to be saying that taking Howard Stern off the air is "using the government to circumvent our rights" and an act of Fascism.

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.