Posted on 04/23/2004 5:31:31 AM PDT by The_Outlaw_Josey_Wales
The Federal Censorship Commission
April 23, 2004
Howard Stern has been doing what he has been doing, vulgar as it can be, for 20 years. Ive searched to the ends of the Internet and as many of Nebraskas best weeklys as I could, and I have yet to turn up one story about one single human being anywhere in this vast country of ours who was in any way harmed by anything they heard from a radio dialed to Stern. Not once have I heard even whispers of a situation where a Howard Stern broadcast violated any individuals right to life, liberty or property.
The FCC (Federal Censorship Commission) is on a roll, radio station owners are in a state of near panic, and broadcasters are losing their livelihoods. Some FCC commissioners, most notably Michael Copp, (a Democrat, by the way), have decided that the FCC has a much broader roll to fill in monitoring and managing the content of radio and television broadcasts than previously imagined.
Americans suffering from AHD (Acute Hypersensitivity Disorder) are fueling the situation, eagerly writing letters and voicing complaints whenever they hear something come from their radio that offends them. A new right is being claimed, the right to not be offended. Politicians anxious to retain their positions of privilege and power in an election year goad the FCC on.
Pat Boone, a musical icon of the 70s has chimed in. Still smarting over the failure of the keepers of the community standards to derail the rise of that fanny-wiggling upstart from Tupelo, Boone shares with us his belief that government is just grand.
It is not the role of the government to determine what we can or cannot listen to on the radio. For adults, its a matter of choice. For children, its 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 todays 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? Isnt it time for you to schedule a parenting priority check?
Today the government censors target is language judged to be obscene. Tomorrow? Who knows? We already have heard that some think the FCC censorship crusade should be expanded to satellite and cable. Somehow Tony Soprano saying darn you doesnt seem all that realistic. Whats next? Comedy clubs?
To some, foul language is offensive. For me there are political ideas that I find far more offensive than any dirty joke Ive ever heard. The phrase President Hillary Clinton immediately comes to mind. That very idea disturbs me far more than any scatological or sexual reference I could imagine coming from the dashboard of my car. In fact, I had to write this particular paragraph in the early morning to give my mind time to purge the idea of a President Hillary before turning it into nightmares at the end of the day.
So If I find talk of the political heroes of the left to be offensive, even dangerous, why should I be subject to that drivel on the radio? Where is my government protection? Do you think Im overreaching here? I dont think so. In the current climate of censorship it is not such a stretch to imagine the government exercising censorship of political thought in broadcasting. In fact, its already here. Remember, please, that the U.S. Supreme Court, in one of its most dangerous and vile decisions ever, has decided that the provisions of the Campaign Finance Reform act prohibiting certain political advertising on radio or television in close proximity to elections is quite Constitutional, thank you very much (for nothing). So, for those of you who dont believe that the role of FCC censorship could expand to expressions of political thought, why dont you take a shot at explaining to me why, if it is legal for the congress to pass a law restricting political advertising, politicians couldnt pass a law restricting the expression of certain political ideas immediately prior to an election altogether?
This threat extends even beyond sexual and political thought. If it is appropriate for the government to protect us from the expression of offensive sexual matter, why not extend that protection to thoughts on any social issues that offend? My expressions of disagreement with affirmative action offend those who benefit from this system of government mandated racial discrimination. Should I be forbidden from expressing those views? Some would certainly support that idea. And nowhere is the negative listener reaction stronger than when I accuse the millions of parents who have replaced effective parenting and discipline with Ritalin of child abuse. Maybe that topic should be forbidden also.
Americans have bought into the ridiculous concept of public ownership of the airwaves, an idea created by politicians for no purpose other than to legitimize government control. We are now at the point where the vast majority of people in the United States get their daily dose of news and information on just what the government and politicians are up to from agencies that are licensed by that very government! We are now seeing that control over those licenses can and will be used to control content. Today the concentration is on content of a sexual nature, but the seeds for control of political content have already germinated. Do you feel any funny vibrations coming from the graves of our founding fathers?
Neal Boortz is a lawyer and nationally syndicated radio talk show host.
©2004 Neal Boortz
Hey Eva Braun, how about if you try actually parenting your children instead of turning them over to the TV or radio?
Give me a break. Discontinue your cable service. Get a television that allows for channel blocking or requiring passcodes for certain channels. Here's an idea, DON'T HAVE A TELEVISION. Or if you do have one, only rent/buy DVDs that you approve of for your children.
If you allow your children to sleep over at their friends, don't you think it is a GOOD IDEA to talk to that friend's parents FIRST and establish the guidelines of what you feel is acceptable exposure for your children while your children are there, otherwise your children will never sleep over there again?
The amount of excuses that some people bark about to avoid parenting is absolutely astonishing.
You can go to www.boortz.com or www.wsbradio.com and stream his radio show off the Internet. 830am-1pm Eastern Time.
I could also make the point that there are quite a few activities that will land one in the hoosegow but which are NOT evil or harmful to others in any direct sense.
I guess the question becomes, "Is sacrificing that bit of Liberty justified by the protection offered?" In the case of "risque' radio", I believe the answer is no.
I also believe that this course we seem to be on is frought with unintended consequences. Whilst stationed in Jacksonville, I thouroughly enjoyed listening to Bubba The Love Sponge. Despite the slings and arrows that particular gentleman has taken alongside Stern, it is little reported indeed that he was a conservative, progun Bush supporter. Leftists who called his show were regularly pilloried in a fashion that only a "shock jock" could do. So too were Hollywood Leftists and celebrity degenerates of all stripes. Wrapped in language and humor for the hard-working, hard-playing person, with some sex stuff for the spice, the conservative message got out to many who did not normally think of such things.
I DO believe that it is not that far a jump from "shock jocks" to "hate radio". We have opened a door here that the first Leftist in the Oval Office in the future will be only too happy to jump through.
When the subject of a ban on those first came up, even Republicans supported it, thinking that those who preferred them were somewhere "out there". It was a PERFECT way to push gun control another few steps, and it completely suckered Republican politicians, including (to his sorrow) a President.
I certainly wouldn't like if he said that. In fact, I'd probably complain to the store owner- not the government.
I can't agree. The radio frequency spectrum is a finite resource. I believe the only way to prevent absolute chaos in the use of frequencies is some kind of control. If anyone and everyone could broadcast a TV signal on, for example, the frequency known as Channel 2 of the VHF television band, all of the signals would interfere with one another.
Do you want every guy with a transmitter transmitting on police or fire communications frequencies?
Even satellite transmissions are made over discrete frequencies. If you spent $500 million putting up a satellite, would you want any jackass in the world to use its capabilities?
Those are all government employees. Howerd Stern and other talk radio hosts are not government employees.
A jelly roll? Or one filled with butter?
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.