Replies

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.

"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?"

We can't....

All Stern is and ever was was a cultural jihadist.

His entire "act"?? To mock human dignity and self-respect, while convincing others that it's "entertainment" and "hip" to worship degradation and perversion.

And THIS is why some people are defending and turning Stern some kind of noble martyr? It's pathetic.