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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Now there's a surprise.
Can anyone tell me what tradition he's talking about. I've never heard of an American tradition of being able to talk about lesbians eating "beaver" on the radio.