Ebert's pro-stern article

Suntimes ^ | 04/16/04 | Roger Ebert

[Nonstatist]

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

You got it wrong. The radio station does not pay a cent for its use of the bandwidth. The "public" is in a sense subsidizing these owners

If the bandwidth was privatized, one or two corporate entities could end up owning all of the frequency range (a finite thing) . This was deemed "not in the Public's interest" (a reasonable regulatory impulse, IMO).

Therefore , in the same way that Public untilities can not raise rates whenever they wish, radio station owners have to abide by rules dictating "decorum". Agree or not (and you can always vote the Executive Branch officeholders, who assign FCC board members, out), this is not "un Constitutional".

[steve-b]

If the bandwidth was privatized, one or two corporate entities could end up owning all of the frequency range (a finite thing).

So it is your opinion that all finite commodities should be doled out by government.

(A period, not a question mark. You have left yourself no wiggle room for any answer other than agreement that this is the logical corrolary to your statement.)

[Nonstatist]

all finite commodities should be doled out by government

I didnt say that ! (note the exclamation mark)

I am against vertical monopolies, cartels, price fixing ,mercantilism and anti-competitive trusts. If all radio stations were owned by one guy it could be argued that it was a bad thing, in the same way that if all oil production was owned by Rockefellow, etc.

I am not a proponent of "throwing people off the air". I am saying it is democratic (note the small d) and not unConstitutional (!) to regulate enitities that use public resources.

OTOH, I am against most gov't interventions (the TVA, Title IX college regulations, Disability Act, much EPA regulations and so on). Most of them are just partisan meddling and all about rigging the system to benefit "friends".

[Tribune7]

YOU think think it's fine for the government to apply sectarian ideas about whaty is and isn't 'obscene'

It's more cultural than sectarian. Do you believe that nothing should be considered obscene?

[E Rocc]

[hchutch]

Y'know, it amazes me how many folks seem to be unable or unwilling to change the station, pop in a CD, or to turn the thing OFF.

[Poohbah]

The problem is that Howard Stern is using public airwaves during the morning drive period, when minors can be exposed to it inadvertently.

A friend of mine had to explain oral sex to his eight-year-old daughter because the radio scanned to the Howard Stern show at a very inopportune moment--my friend was TRYING to get a traffic report.

[cspackler]

The whole issue here really doesn't have that much to do with Stern, he was simply the biggest target. I made the statement to my wife after the Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction"... the "entertainers" in this country are simply going to keep pushing the shock value envelope until the FCC makes an example out of someone. Guess what? Stern drew the short straw. After some people get the major slap-down, things will loosen up again. It's all part of the cycle. I'm all for freedom of speech, but there has to be a line somewhere that can't be crossed.

[Mr. Bird]

A friend of mine had to explain oral sex to his eight-year-old daughter

Oh, come on. All the Lewinsky business notwithstanding, no one ever needs to explain oral sex to an eight year old. Anyone who can't adroitly change the subject matter has some some rough parenting ahead of themselves.

[hchutch]

Yeah, there is the argument about situations like your friend's. On the other hand, there is something to be said about not wanting the govenrment to encroach on things.

Somewhere a line has to be drawn. I just don't know quite where it ought to be.

[Poohbah]

Oh, come on. All the Lewinsky business notwithstanding, no one ever needs to explain oral sex to an eight year old. Anyone who can't adroitly change the subject matter has some some rough parenting ahead of themselves.

And you're hoping to make it rougher for them, eh?

[Mr. Bird]

Sorry, I was trying to joke a little. I do not envy anyone with an inquisitive eight-year old daughter. If I'm ever blessed with one, I think my wife will have to take over until she's 21.

[Poohbah]

Sorry, I was trying to joke a little. I do not envy anyone with an inquisitive eight-year old daughter.

I have an inquisitive six-year-old daughter.

If I'm ever blessed with one, I think my wife will have to take over until she's 21.

Standard non-adroit answer: "Go ask your mother." :o)

[RightWingAtheist]

Limbaugh does offend me when I monitor him, because he has cheapened political discourse in this country with his canned slogans and cheap shots.

Pot, kettle, black. This is from someone who called A Clockwork Orange and Dirty Harry facist, and compared the crown at an Andrew Dice Clay concert to a Hitler rally. Ebert should look back at his reviews over his entire see how he has cheapened them with his simplistic politics.

[RightWingAtheist]

A clever ploy on Stern's part, because it gets obsessive Bush haters like Ebert on his side.

[beckett]

Roger Ebert, creator, in his days as a failed Hollywood scriptwriter, of the softporn character Sweet Li'l Alice, a guy who now goes to the movies for a living and thinks it a productive use of his time, listens daily to the won't-grow-up-don't-want-to-go-to-school Peter Pan of radio, Howard Stern, champion of perpetual adolescents everywhere.

Now there's a surprise.

[RightWingAtheist]

crown=crowd

[RightWingAtheist]

And oh yes, how can Ebert reconcile his complaints about Limbaugh "cheapening" the political discourse with his tireless championing of Michael Moore?

[RightWingAtheist]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/953488/posts