Posted on 04/16/2004 5:18:24 AM PDT by Monty22
Like millions of Americans, I listen to Howard Stern on the radio in the mornings. I think he is smart, quick and funny. Sometimes he is ''offensive,'' but to be quite frank, I am not ''offended,'' because what he says falls within the realm of words and subjects that, as an adult, I have long been familiar with even without the tutelage of Stern.
Unlike millions of Americans, I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio. One reason for that is that I am usually at the movies when he's on the air -- an alternative I urge on his listeners. Limbaugh does offend me when I monitor him, because he has cheapened political discourse in this country with his canned slogans and cheap shots. Once you call a feminist a ''feminazi,'' what else is there to say about feminism?
Of course you may disagree with me and prefer Limbaugh. I may disagree with you and prefer Stern. That is our right as Americans. What offends me is that the right wing, secure in its own right to offend, now wants to punish Stern to the point where he may be forced off the air.
The big difference, of course, is that Stern's offenses usually have to do with sex and language, while Limbaugh's have to do with politics. Stern offends the puritan right, which doesn't seem to respect the American tradition of freedom of expression.
You don't have to listen to Stern. Exercising the same freedom, I am Limbaugh-free. And please don't tell me that Stern must be fined and driven off the radio because he uses the ''public airwaves.'' If they are public, then his listeners are the public, and we want to listen to him on our airwaves. The public airwaves cannot be held hostage to a small segment that wants to decide what the rest of us can hear -- especially now that President Bush supports consolidating more and more media outlets into a few rich hands.
But what if a child should tune in? Call me old-fashioned, but I believe it is the responsibility of parents to control their children's media input. The entire nation cannot be held hostage so that everything on the radio is suitable for 9-year-olds. Nor do I know of any children who want to listen to Stern, anyway; they prefer music.
It is a belief of mine about the movies, that what makes them good or bad isn't what they're about, but how they're about them. The point is not the subject but the form and purpose of its expression. A listener to Stern will find that he expresses humanistic values, that he opposes hypocrisy, that he talks honestly about what a great many Americans do indeed think and say and do. A Limbaugh listener, on the other hand, might not have guessed from campaigns to throw the book at drug addicts that he was addicted to drugs and required an employee to buy them on the street.
But listen carefully. I support Limbaugh's right to be on the radio. I feel it is fully equal to Stern's. I find it strange that so many Americans describe themselves as patriotic when their values are anti-democratic and totalitarian. We are all familiar with Voltaire's great cry: ''I may disagree with what you say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it.'' Ideas like his helped form the emerging American republic. Today, the Federal Communications Commission operates under an alternative slogan: ''Since a minority that is very important to this administration disagrees with what you say, shut up.''
What's with the hypocrisy/double standards?
Roger, how is a responsible parent to monitor their children's radio listening? Are their V-Chips in radios? When your kid walks by with those walkman headphones on, can you tell exactly what he is listening to?
Every time I see a comparison of Limbaugh & Stern it is written by a liberal. These people are so shallow. The only thing these 2 guys have in common is that they both work in Radio. Beyond that...
Other than a cheap form of comedy, Stern's schtick contributes nothing to society. OTOH, Limbaugh is working in the realm of political speech -- which is the type of speech that should be most protected by the 1st Amendment. Roger Ebert needs to think before he sits down to his Word Processor.
Stuffing his fat pasty face with pastries?
Stern is convinced that his new problems with the FCC and Clear Channel are the direct result of some of the anti-Bush statements he's made on the air.
Sure it does. It makes me laugh. It makes me happy in the morning. It makes a long commute in the car more bearable.
Just because there has been a lapse of decency standards in the recent past, doesn't mean that there shouldn't be an attempt to bring back those standards.
If you can cite the benefit to society of Stern asking porn queens whether they "make it" with other women, well then maybe I will cede your point. And face it, 97% of Stern's shows these days are comprised of this type of dialogue.
NO...
They're nervous about losing advertising dollars...this is a financial decision.
The left has been trying to get Rush off the air for years too...Rush has some very loyal advertisers who realize that their core buying audience are Rush's listeners. Howard does not have that luxury or loyalty.
Howard is framing this as a me against the Bush regime argument....it's frankly turned me off of Howard specifically because he's not being honest.
He should be talking about the fact he was fined by the Clinton admin too....but the truth is he loved Clinton, and some of this is probably his revenge against the republicans for daring to take Clinton down a notch.
I completely agree. I'm a Stern fan, but the guy's off-base about this, like he is 90% of the time when he talks politics.
Does not anyone wish to question what this phrase means?
This concept that just because a private property owner makes their product or service available to all citizens, this some how makes it a "public" product or service where everyone is entitled to equal access is just plain wrong.
There is no constitutional basis for this declaration. It is nothing less than judicial dictum.
It is a communist/socialist concept.
The "public airwaves," as so flippantly stated, would not be available to anyone of the "public" if it was not for private property owners risking the loss of their private property, money, to purchase transmission equipment enabling them to broadcast speech and music over certain radio frequencies for all of those private individuals who which to purchase another piece of private property, a receiver, to listen to that speech and music, broadcast to them over privately owned broadcast equipment
With that being said, what is the constitutional jurisdiction for Congress, through the FCC, to regulate the content of speech spoken by private property owners?
Some would say Article I, Section 8, Cl 3, the "commerce clause."
Ok, let's accept that delegated power to be true, though I believe that conclusion is dubious.
And so did the anti-federalist in 1789.
Because the anti-federalist feared that future federal politicians would expand the "Powers of Congress" in Article I, Section 8, beyond their original intention, they would not ratify the Constitution until there was a Bill of Rights to specifically prohibit the unintended consequences of future expansion of that power and subsequent loss of liberty, life, and property that would result from that expansion of federal power not orignally intended.
So, in this case of Howard Stern's employer, a private property owner, being censored and fined for exercising their right of free speech, using private property to exercise that right, two amendments contained in the original Bill of Rights, insisted by the anti-federalist, are applicable to halt and stop Congress' unconstitutional action promulgated through the FCC.
Amendment I and Amendment V.
Free people, let me repeat that phrase, free people, as individuals, make the decision what speech that are going to listen to, without interference from their government.
To all of you "conservatives" here at FreeRepublic.com, what would you say if Rush Limbaugh was "fined" for using the phrase "enviromental wacko's" as being offensive by Congress, through the FCC?
Free speech and private property rights are the fundamental philosophical basis for the exertion of the twin, uniquely U.S.A., enviable actions of liberty and capitalism, which are the fundamental building blocks for individuals to live prosperous, happy, and free lives. (see Milton Friedman, "Free to Choose, circa 1980)
Support of any action by Congress, through the FCC, to the contrary is nothing less than totalitarianism, anti-constitutionalist, and anti-U.S.A.
I would say Stern's show appeals to adults' "base" senses. Those who don't wish to have those senses stimulated don't tune in. Kids don't even care; they don't get it.
I understand the FCC's position, I just don't agree with it.
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.