The Federal Censorship Commission

www.townhall.com ^ | April 23, 2004 | Neal Boortz

[Vigilantcitizen]

It is not the role of the government to determine what we can or cannot listen to on the radio. For adults, it’s a matter of choice. For children, it’s a matter left up to parents. Every modern radio I have ever seen has a minimum of two knobs. Votes for or against programming can be cast with a simple twist of either one. And please spare me your concerns that our precious children might inadvertently hear something ugly while out of your control. Believe me, nothing they hear on the radio is going to match today’s lunch line and playground whispers and snickers at the local government school. Besides, just how many simulated murders did you child watch on television the last week? Isn’t it time for you to schedule a parenting priority check?

Boortz bump.

[Mariposaman]

It would be hard to argue that our children's lives have been enriched in the last 30 years or so because of extremely lax censorship. Frankly put, the F.C.C. has not been carrying out its charter. Until such time a parent has the ability to block out offensive stations on a typical radio, the Howard Sterns of the world will simply need to tone it down a little.

[TheSilverHair]

Wow. My first post. Time to get my ass in gear...!
I perfectly agree with the first poster. I find the far left far more offensive than Howard Stern. Howard Stern is simply, honestly stupid in an offensive but harmless way. The far left, however, is sneakily, connivingly stupid in an offensive and very dangerous way. Homosexual rights lovers and abortion fans are far more evil than the stupid banality that Howard Stern displays.
It is to my shame that I admit to having watched the Howard Stern show. In my defense, I was young, hormone-driven, and weak-willed when it came to certain temptations. To this unfortunate combination, add a satellite dish and access to E! after 11:00 p.m., and you have the perfect set-up for teenage Howard Stern watching.
Which I did. Twice. Then I quit. Why?
BECAUSE IT WAS SO DAMN STUPID.
I do not care what a porn star thinks. That's not why she's a porn star. She's a porn star for her body, and E! conveniently blocked that out (causing much teenage angst and cursing for me). So I quit watching it and launched a campaign to unscramble Playboy. That campaign, probably for the good of my soul, failed, although that's not the point. The point is, despite the fact that Howard Stern is an idiot, needs a haircut, and is definitely one of the most offensive people on the planet, I perfectly agree with VigilanteCitizen. There are two knobs. We can eliminate Stern and other idiots by turning either one.
Nothing is as important as free speech. Stern is evil. But, if to defend my own right to say what I want, I must fight for Stern's rights as well, then hand me a gun and tell him he has a new bodyguard. A great man once said, and I quote, " I do not agree with what you say, sir, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Those words were true then; they are true now.
After all, if Stern's rights are lost, what will happen when the liberal media decides that the conservative right is offensive? What will happen, my friends?
What will happen....?

[MissAmericanPie]

This, "left to the parents", stuff is rediculous. Parents stand no chance against the constant bombardment their children are exposed to, either at home, during what is suppose to be family time viewing, during sleep overs at friends. Even Sat morning cartoons are x-rated.

[The_Outlaw_Josey_Wales]

>>This, "left to the parents", stuff is rediculous.

Where in the Constitution does it grant the federal government the authority to monitor what your children are subjected to? That's your responsibility, not government's.

[waverna]

The FCC's 'charter' is to make sure signals don't overlap and provide order in the granting of licenses to those signals. Once they start regulating content anything goes. Just change the station.

[Hacksaw]

Howard Stern can go to hell. I have never seen such a whiner.

[freepatriot32]

If all television is xrated even cartoons and its harming your children why do you keep one in your house? If you think your kids are being harmed by the constant bombardment of filth coming from the boob tubee throw it out! You have to decide what is best for your family and I not the goverment will decide whats best for mine.

[ContemptofCourt]

HOWARD STERN TRIUMPHS IN NEW YORK CITY: BACK TO #1 AFTER INDECENCY FIGHT:

ARBITRON ratings released this hour show badboy Howard Stern rocketing back to the top in New York City with a 7.2 share in 12+ listeners and a stunning 10.0 share in ages 25-54 [Up from a 5.9 12+ in the fall]...

Stern, who once again has been at the center of an indencey fight with the Feds, takes NYC morning drive for the first three months of the year, over all-news WINS [6.4 share], WABC's CURTIS & KUBY [3.4 share] and WFAN's Don Imus [2.6]...

Nothing like making a martyr of the man....

[ijcr]

It is easy to fall for the succulent sweet argument that this is a First Amendment issue.It is not! It is a property rights issue.

The property in question being the national broadcast spectrum...it's owners are every American,democrat or republican, gay or straight,rich or poor,Christian,Jew,Muslim, or any other faith,AARP or high school graduate.

If we take your premise that this is a free speech issue would you endorse for example the Greeter at a Wal-Mart on meeting your wife,mother or girl friend with "Yo, Ho. Nice rack"?

After all you have the option to shop there or not.

The true hypocrisy is that these "hosts" who claim this right, deny the same to all callers to their shows by using tape delay.

It does not matter if it is Stern,Limbough,Boortz,Franken,Beck or Bubba, the love sponge.If you ask them to discard the tape delay you will be informed that while free speech is important,the public cannot be trusted with it!

[BureaucratusMaximus]

This, "left to the parents", stuff is rediculous. Parents stand no chance against the constant bombardment their children are exposed to, either at home, during what is suppose to be family time viewing, during sleep overs at friends. Even Sat morning cartoons are x-rated.

Its not ridiculous, its a sad reality. Parents should shelter their kids from ideas and images that they are not mature enough to handle yet.(if ever in some cases) We only have ourselves to blame for supporting the corporations who produce such material with our money, allowing such material in our home, whine and complain...and do nothing about it.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

Howard Stern can go to hell. I have never seen such a whiner.

Yep...whining all the way to the bank...its a bit-- ain't it?

[freeeee]

"When the Paulist radio station of poor Fr. James Gillis in Chicago criticized FDR's court-packing scheme, the FCC took its license away."

Source

[The_Outlaw_Josey_Wales]

>>Howard Stern can go to hell.

I'm sure he will. But I'd rather turn the radio station than have the government censor him. After all, if we give the government the authority to censor Howard Stern, who's to say that they won't try to censor Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity, or some other conservative commentator? Remember, Bill Clinton tried to tie the Oklahoma City bombing to conservative "hate" radio. So although I don't like Howard Stern and I would never listen to his show, I still defend him from government censorship.

[The_Outlaw_Josey_Wales]

>>The property in question being the national broadcast spectrum...it's owners are every American,democrat or republican, gay or straight,rich or poor,Christian,Jew,Muslim, or any other faith,AARP or high school graduate.

Sounds like socialism to me: "we all own it..."

Nonsense. As Neal Boortz said, “public ownership of the airwaves is an idea created by politicians for no purpose other than to legitimize government control."

Amen.

[hchutch]

An excellent column by Neal Boortz on this subject.

[Long Cut]

"It would be hard to argue that our children's lives have been enriched in the last 30 years or so because of extremely lax censorship. Frankly put, the F.C.C. has not been carrying out its charter."

It would be equally hard to argue that "enriching your children's lives" is ANY concern of ANY government agency.

In fact, it would be impossible, according to the Constitution.

"Until such time a parent has the ability to block out offensive stations on a typical radio, the Howard Sterns of the world will simply need to tone it down a little."

Hmm. Where in the First Amendment does it have a clause referring to "when technology becomes available"?

Irrelevant in any case, because such technology exists...the tuning knob, or the on/off switch. Or, simply get rid of the TV. If a person can't bring themself to do those simple things, they shouldn't be able to dictate what OTHERS may watch and hear.

[Poohbah]

You can be arrested for repeating a Howard Stern show in public--it's known as "indecent behavior."

[Long Cut]

". And please spare me your concerns that our precious children might inadvertently hear something ugly while out of your control. Believe me, nothing they hear on the radio is going to match today’s lunch line and playground whispers and snickers at the local government school. Besides, just how many simulated murders did you child watch on television the last week? Isn’t it time for you to schedule a parenting priority check?"

Absolutely DEVASTATING line from Boortz! I wish I could get him up here in Maine, I used to listen all the time in Jacksonville.

This "for the children" nonsense is just as silly whether it comes from the Left or the Right. What people REALLY mean is "ME".