Replies

Freedom of speech does not mean you can poop in public....if someone wants to start an x-rated radio station, let them.....and make those who want to listen to it pay, bigtime.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can poop in public....if someone wants to start an x-rated radio station, let them

Apparently freedom of speech means that my kids are forced to watch lesbians french kissing on the network news when they report about gay marriage. That is far more offensive to me than anything Stern has ever done.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can poop in public Of course not - freedom of speech means you can talk about it.

Stern is a dirty old man... in a hippie wig.

As for freedom of speech, I'm backing the 1915 Supreme Court who ruled against the movie industry in freedom of speech protection. They said that there was a "great potential for evil" in motion pictures.

The court ruled that because it was impossible for average citizens to respond or rebut things on the big screen because of cost and time constraints -- as you could immediately write in to a newspaper, for example -- and because the film business was "a business, pure and simple" -- that film did NOT come under First Amendment protection.

The ruling, stimulated by the race riots over D.W. Griffith's BIRTH OF A NATION, allowed for individual states to censor films as they saw fit.

This is why the film business panicked, and, together all the studios HIRED their Production Code Office executives, starting with Republican and first degree Mason, Will Hays, lately of the scandal ridden Coolidge administration. (Tea Pot Dome scandal).

The Production Code standards actually ruled for fifty years until another Supreme Court ruling began with the idea that film was "art" -- at the urging of Leftists in the entertainment industry at that time. Our modern day sense that film and radio automatically deserve first amendment protection when, we the people supposedly "own the airwaves" and when to respond to content requires millions and millions and millions of dollars, is actually skewed.

This is why Stern and film and tv executives are confused about the business that they are in. They are in a commercial business, making money while trying to hide behind the idea that what they are doing is "art".

Good for Powell and clear channel. I, for one, look back at the Golden Age of entertainment, when writers and actors had to stay clean and the double entrendre meant something. The moral standards imposed on writers and directors and actors in film and tv and radio by the Production Code actually made for BETTER ENTERTAINMENT.

Again, as someone already said, Stern is just a creepy dirty old man.

Take away the hippie wig, cut his hair and stop with the black hair dye and you've got a classic dirty old man in a trench coat. Yuck.