Shock jock sues critic over FCC complaints (Chicago's Erich "Mancow" Muller)

AP ^ | 3-23-04 | Tara Burghart

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Howard Stern, the most famous of the shock jocks, has predicted the FCC's crackdown will force his show off the dial.

Here's hoping.

[steplock]

Doesn't the FCC regulations, besides mentioning "obscene", "purient interests", etc, also use the term "OFFENSIVE" ?

That is the word that is dangerous for the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Obscenity and purient interest materials can be legally defined regionally and locally by logic and concensus. Local govts have every right to ban these materials from public view.

But "offensive" is strictly an individuals reaction.

.

[ItsMyVoteDammit]

Doesn't the FCC regulations, besides mentioning "obscene", "purient interests", etc, also use the term "OFFENSIVE" ?

Hmmm. Many things Rush says are probably considered offensive by lefties. That must be why he is condemning what Clear Channel is doing to Howard.

[Phantom Lord]

Here's hoping that Howard stays on the air for years to come.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Here's hoping that Howard stays on the air for years to come.

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.

[Labyrinthos]

Isn't the simpler solution for Smith to listen to another radio station?

[mike_9958]

This is what Stern should have done instead of crying on the air for weeks..... he has got to be the whinest millionaire I've ever heard.

Its nice to see someone finally taking this to court. Seeing judges willingness to legislate from the bench on items this should be interesting.

I applaud Mancow.

[Swordmaker]

This should be thrown out forthwith... You cannot be deemed to have committed a tort through exercising a Constitutional Right.

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."

[Swordmaker]

oops... forgot to define the term SLAPP

SLAPP means "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation."

[Dan from Michigan]

Payback time. Kick their ass, Mancow.

HEIL KLINTLER!

[Swordmaker]

I applaud Mancow.

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?

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

I applaud Mancow.

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)?

[gdani]

Obscenity and purient interest materials can be legally defined regionally and locally by logic and concensus

How do you do that when a radio show is syndicated or a TV show airs on affiliates across the country?

[gdani]

Howard Stern, the most famous of the shock jocks, has predicted the FCC's crackdown will force his show off the dial.

Here's hoping

I don't know about you, but my radio comes with a dial that allows me to change channels.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

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.

[John H K]

By the way, Mancow is a rabid-Clinton hater and Republican supporter.

[Swordmaker]

By the way, Mancow is a rabid-Clinton hater and Republican supporter.

So? He is still attempting to deny a citizen's Rights by SLAPP.

[mike_9958]

Both of you are being quite anal, drawing parallels to actual crimes and the making assumptions that a law was actually broken by Mancow.

If a law was broken please point it out - and be specific.

I doubt that you have any idea, other than a thought of what Mancow actually did.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Both of you are being quite anal, drawing parallels to actual crimes and the making assumptions that a law was actually broken by Mancow. [...] I doubt that you have any idea, other than a thought of what Mancow actually did.

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.