Posted on 03/23/2004 4:52:08 PM PST by Indy Pendance
CHICAGO – As regulators crack down on indecency on the airwaves, a nationally syndicated shock jock struck back Tuesday, suing a man who has repeatedly complained about his radio show to the government.
Erich "Mancow" Muller said in the lawsuit that the complaints were malicious and untrue, and were designed to ruin him financially.
Muller hosts "Mancow's Morning Madhouse," broadcast in Chicago on WKQX-FM. It features celebrity interviews, a sidekick with an indelicate nickname and parody songs.
According to the lawsuit, David E. Smith and his group Citizens for Community Values of Illinois have filed more than 60 complaints with the Federal Communications Commission since 2000 alleging the shock jock violated broadcast standards.
During that period, the FCC fined Muller and WKQX-FM's parent company, Indianapolis-based Emmis Communications, $42,000.
One $7,000 fine was for a song deemed to contain explicit references to sexual activity, according to FCC records. Another concerned "numerous sexual references" during a discussion.
FCC officials could not immediately say whether those fines stemmed from Smith's complaints.
The lawsuit, filed in Cook County Circuit Court, asks for $3 million and an injunction barring Smith from making "spurious" complaints about Muller to the government.
Smith did not immediately return phone calls and an e-mail seeking comment Tuesday. But in an interview published Tuesday in the Chicago Sun-Times, Smith said he is simply following the FCC grievance procedure.
"Mancow is trying to censor his critic, which is ironic for a free speech advocate in a democratic society," Smith said.
The lawsuit comes amid an escalating national debate over indecent programming. The House and a Senate committee recently voted to raise the maximum indecency fine for broadcast license-holders and performers to $500,000.
Howard Stern, the most famous of the shock jocks, has predicted the FCC's crackdown will force his show off the dial. Last month, Clear Channel, the nation's largest radio station chain, suspended Stern from its six stations that carried him.
Muller's publicist said the radio show host wasn't available to talk Tuesday. But he issued a statement in which he said any profits from the lawsuit would be donated to charity.
"I have garnered a massive war fund and will not quit until my First Amendment right to free speech is restored," Muller's statement said. "If we lose the First Amendment, we lose America."
Here's hoping.
Yeah. Because lord knows what's really needed in the mass media, right now, is one more virulently anti-Bush, pro-Kerry butthead, spewing forth the same tired old DNC-fed talking points, daily.
Maybe he could team up with Al "Bucktooth" Franken, on the latter's sydicated lib-radio hate fest. The two have so much in common, political leanings-wise, after all.
Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This radio jock is attempting to SLAPP the filer of the complaints. A SLAPP is
"a (1) civil complaint or counterclaim; (2) filed against individuals or organizations; (3) arising from their communications to government or speech on an issue of public interest or concern. SLAPPs are often brought by corporations, real estate developers, government officials and others against individuals and community groups who oppose them on issues of public concern. SLAPP filers frequently use lawsuits based on ordinary civil claims such as defamation, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, nuisance, interference with contract and/or economic advantage, as a means of transforming public debate into lawsuits."
SLAPP means "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation."
The FCC levied fines totally $42,000 against Mancow's station, leading me to believe that the FCC found that the complaints were well founded and sustained.
Are you saying that you applaud Mancow's defending his Right to turn the air blue by squashing the Right of the people to report a violation of the law? Would you also applaud a bank robber suing the person who called the police to report the crime? How about the neighbor calling child protective services because a child was being sexually abused? Where, exactly, do you draw the line?
Interesting, if inexplicable. The FCC clearly found Mancow guilty of violating its standards (which both he and any station[s] broadcasting his show are legally obligated to observe)... so, clearly, the CCV has the common sense interpretation of the facts of the case, as stated, on its side.
Which, then, is it that you're applauding: Mancow's "right" to violate the law, at whim... or his "right" not to be taken to court or sued for breaking said law(s)?
How do you do that when a radio show is syndicated or a TV show airs on affiliates across the country?
Here's hoping
I don't know about you, but my radio comes with a dial that allows me to change channels.
I don't know about you, but my membership to Free Republic comes with a license to state my own opinions... regardless of whether anyone here agrees with them or not.
That, too, "= conservatism."
Think about it.
So? He is still attempting to deny a citizen's Rights by SLAPP.
It's always been my theory that you can reliably measure the general weakness and overall paucity of any given man's "argument" by his inability to remain reasonably civil, in the process. Thank you for demonstrating the rock solid reliability of said thesis for me, in full public view.
Postings #12 and #13 already pimp-slapped your groundless assertion that neither Swordmaker nor myself were familiar with the particulars in this case, obviously... but, if further public humiliation is what you're hungry for: Read It and Weep .
The charges (and resulting fines) are, you'll kindly notice, conveniently laid out for your perusal. Note, please, that the FCC leaves no doubts open whatsoever as to whether or not "Mancow," in plain, unvarnished fact, illegally violated their mandated standards or not.
Now: if you think you're at all capable of doing so in a reasonably civil manner... you might try answering the questions put (politely) to you earlier. I'll recap, for your convenience:
The FCC clearly found Mancow guilty of violating its standards (which both he and any station[s] broadcasting his show are legally obligated to observe)... so, clearly, the CCV has the common sense interpretation of the facts of the case, as stated, on its side.
Which, then, is it that you're applauding: Mancow's "right" to violate the law, at whim... or his "right" not to be taken to court or sued for breaking said law(s)?
I'll be back sometime later this evening, to see whether or not you were up to the challenge of doing so.
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.