Posted on 11/24/2004 12:42:38 AM PST by kattracks
THE next time the FCC complains about How ard Stern, Viacom has promised to yank him off the air immediately.The unusual "sudden death" deal is part of a sweeping, $3.5 million consent decree announced yesterday by the FCC that wipes out "at least 50" indecency investigations against all of Viacom's radio and TV stations — including several against Stern, as well as Opie & Anthony's $357,000 fine for their infamous "Sex in St. Pat's" contest.
It does not include the $550,00 fine against CBS for Janet Jackson's Super Bowl flash, which the network has vowed to fight in court.
Viacom is the owner of Infinity Broadcasting — Stern's boss — and CBS and UPN.
Under the agreement, Viacom promised to install a company-wide "Compliance Plan." The plan stipulates that any employee who draws a formal FCC complaint will be suspended immediately while an internal investigation is conducted.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Latest episode of soap opera, "As the World Sterns"
Stern is a dirtbag and the sooner he's off the air the better.
With all the filth in contemporary culture, I never saw the point of listening to Stern's show. It just seemed redundant...like defecating on the L.A. Times.
lol !!!
Attention FREEPERS, you know what to do!
Thought I can't stand Howard Stern, I'm troubled about the ruling. I understand what indencent and obscene language is as well.. but here's my concern.... who will decide to define what it is. What if someone finds political discussion indecent?? Maybe I'm straying off the bus here, but I'd sure like the FCC to make this clear as a bell. You KNOW some congress critters are trying to pull Rush off AFRTS... You've heard where a Kerry campaign spokesman told Sinclair Broadcasting that 'they better HOPE Kerry isn't elected (or they'd punish them for trying to show Stolen Honor) .... Soooooooo, I'll just wait to celebrate this announcment.
YIKES..
Sorry, I didn't spell check that last post.. :( plz 4gv me. :)
OK folks...think for just a second what this means. A small group can file enough complaints to silence anyone they don't agree with.
If that doesn't scare you, nothing will.
stern.....yank 'em and spank 'em.....
"OK folks...think for just a second what this means. A small group can file enough complaints to silence anyone they don't agree with.
If that doesn't scare you, nothing will."
Well, then according to your philosophy, nothing can ever be stopped from being put on the air. Because you can never go too far. Or at least you seem to be saying no one will ever be able to define what is too far, beyond the pale. So, even though there were innumerable complaints about Janet Jackson's "boob" act at the Super Bowl game, those complaints according to you are just a "small" group trying to silence those that disagree with them. That's why our country is going downhill fast, morally. Because of those who say because someone further down the line may use a policy to shaft those opposing their viewpoint as well, we do nothing.
The Dems will always use a policy to shaft opposing viewpoints first chance they get, as it is in their nature. When in power, they simply mow over all opposing viewpoints, and ignore laws as well, or change them to suit themselves. If the Pubs don't wise up and set up opposing policies while they have the upper hand, then we are doomed to continue the downhill slide into moral turpitude. And that includes FCC policy. At least the Pubs, while in power, should set up as many policies and laws and get as many judges w/conservative views in office as they possibly can, to offset what you know will be coming if the Dems regain power anytime in the near future. You are afraid they will retaliate if they get into power. They will retaliate regardless of what the Pubs do or don't do. Pubs have to learn how to fight as ferociously as Dems do.
He's an immature, boring hack. Who the hell cares?
I think the true conservative opinion of what the FCC should do is more along the lines of "close up shop and send the money back to the folks who earned it".
(sarcasm) Does the deal also include getting rid of 'Jerry Springer' reruns? ;P
It's something to ponder, but when it comes to Stern, he's fully aware that the fines waged against him are due to "indecency" and not "political" rants. That's precisely why he wants to move to satellite radio as soon as possible.
I personally have looked at the fines that the FCC has filed, and they all concerned "indecency", and not "politics". This past election proved that the McCain-Feingold bill was a failure for the liberals who thought it would be to their benefit, and it still should have been thrown out for its attempt to influence "political" speech.
What I'm concerned about is not "indecency", but "political" speech. If what is considered as "conservative" or "liberal" radio is deemed "indecent", I'd be worried, but this fine is based on sexual "indecency", and not "political" rants.
Unless the "indecency" laws that were written by congress long ago are overturned, the FCC is forced to investigate complaints that are "indecent". It would be true of administration.
Given that, Stern deserves to be marginalized because as what he loves to think of as his "indecent" broadcasts, he deserves the fines. I hate Stern, and I wish his radio career would sink, not because of "indecency", but because he sucks out all the liberals in hisanti-Bush tirades. Regard, Raymond, Tess, Austin, Vanessa and Raymond
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.