LIMBAUGH WARNS OF DANGER TO FREE SPEECH

Drudge ^ | 2/26/04 | Drudge/Limbaugh

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

LIMBAUGH WARNS OF DANGER TO FREE SPEECH THU FEB 26 2004 12:28:21 ET

THE NATION'S TOP RADIO HOST RUSH LIMBAUGH WARNED OF GROWING GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN BROADCASTING CONTENT.

LIMBAUGH MADE THE COMMENTS AFTER HIS PARENT COMPANY CLEAR CHANNEL DROPPED VIACOM'S HOWARD STERN FROM ITS STATIONS.

'SMUT ON TV GETS PRAISED. SMUT ON TV WINS EMMYS. ON RADIO, THERE SEEMS TO BE DIFFERENT STANDARDS,' LIMBAUGH EXPLAINED.

'I'VE NEVER HEARD HOWARD STERN. BUT WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GETS INVOLVED IN THIS, I GET A LITTLE FRIGHTENED.

'IF WE ARE GOING TO SIT BY AND LET THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GET INVOLVED IN THIS, IF THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO 'CENSOR' WHAT THEY THINK IS RIGHT AND WRONG... WHAT HAPPENS IF A WHOLE BUNCH OF JOHN KERRYS, OR TERRY MCAULIFFES START RUNNING THIS COUNTRY. AND DECIDE CONSERVATIVE VIEWS ARE LEADING TO VIOLENCE?

'I AM IN THE FREE SPEECH BUSINESS. ITS ONE THING FOR A COMPANY TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE PARTY TO IT. ITS ANOTHER THING FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DO IT.'

MORE

[birbear]

if a state or the federal governments passes law against saying the f word or n word they can. it has nothing to do with the first amendment.

That's not what the Supreme Court has upheld, time and time again.

[hchutch]

So, because I don't have kids, my views don't count.

Why is it that you seem so eager to call for Howard Stern to be taken off the air? Are you that unwilling to let the market decide? Or does this sort of thing depend on whose ox is getting gored? Does the term "chilling effect" mean anything? Or do you are so offended by Howard Stern you don't really care what sort of precedent is set?

I don't like censorship - either from govenrment edict OR because the executives are feeling the heat because politicians have started grandstanding. The prude patrols on the right are really no different than the though police from the left in my book.

If people don't like Howard Stern, I have no problem with them turning the dial and telling people why. They can even buy ads for all I care. Ditto for Rush Limbaugh. Free speech goes both ways.

But when people cross beyond that, and decide to FORCE their aesthetic onto others via government action after their refusal to turn in and their efforts to convince others to follow suit fail to the point that a Limbaugh or Stern is ranked #1 or #2 in their timeslots, I have SERIOUS problems with that.

Because a few people who feel they have an "annointed" vision are now going to forcibly take the choice to decide if they want to listen to a Limbaugh or a Stern away from those they see as "unenlightened". I, for one, do not wish to see government in the hands of those who are so convinced they know what is best for me - so much so that they will FORCE me to do that if I will not go along with them.

I did not like that attitude coming from Hillary Clinton when it came to decisions about health care.

I did not like that attitude coming from Sarah Brady, Charles Schumer, and Carolyn McCarthy when it came to my decision whether or not I wanted to own a gun.

I did not like that attitude coming from Bill Clinton when he raised taxes in 1993.

I did not like that attitude coming from Tommy Thompson when he banned ephedra.

I do not like that attitude coming from Ingrid Newkirk and Neal Barnard about eating (and enjoying) steak, veal, beef, and other meat products.

I'm not going to put up with that attitude from a prude patrol from the likes of Don Wildmon.

I am a rational adult - I think I am perfectly capable of making my own decisions and dealing with the consequences. I don't need, much less WANT, a nanny state from the left or the right.

[Sabertooth]

Can you tell me what I'm alowed to eat for dinner tonight as well? I mean some people find meat to be vulgur right?

Is your dinner table, or the food on it, a legally established public resource?

If not, then no.

[cyncooper]

Stupidest argument presented on the thread.

Congrats.

[11th Earl of Mar]

The part of your theory I disagree with is the part that is lacking, specifically, your documentation to support your conclusion, which is where this conversation started.

[Howlin]

I'll stand with you.

[reademnweep]

I would caution about use of public resource. Boy Scouts, Nativity scene's, and Christmas Carols' come to mind.

[cyncooper]

One persons child rearing recipe - Make every effort to provide: moral clarity, good judgement, education and advise strongly to never compromise your values. Mix in a little of your own rant, and sit back and watch your child Grow. No FCC regulators allowed in recipe. You'll be surprised how close they replicate the cook.

One person's? You say this as if that is not how most of us raise our children. That's certainly how I raise mine. Does not mean if they are confronted with something inappropriate they are not negatively affected.

[Howlin]

Exactly right. It is a stretch to believe he has never wandered into a broadcast.

Why would Rush lie about that? Makes no sense.

Some of us out here just never listened.

[Poohbah]

The problem is that the airwaves are a public resource, accessible to one and all without particular effort.

Bottom line: there are some things that are fine on a private-access network that are clearly unacceptable if shouted out in public.

A simple standard should suffice: "If the radio host said this out loud in front of City Hall, could he get zapped on a public lewdness charge?"

My coworker had to have an impromptu conversation with his 8-year-old daughter while driving her to school--one that he'd hoped to avoid for several years--after unintentionally hearing a Howard Stern punchline while scanning the car radio for a traffic report. (He said he aged a decade when his daughter asked, "Daddy, what's oral sex?")

It's one of the reasons we didn't like Clinton.

[cyncooper]

I should say I've never encountered Stern on the radio either. I did see him years ago on a short-lived tv program. I checked it out, it was not for me and that was it.

My posts regard the general idea of the FCC and the idea of common decency and not Stern, per se.

[antiRepublicrat]

It doesn't work that way, your hypothetical falls.

Why not? Stern is offensive to you, while Focus on the Family is offensive to gays and liberals. It could be said that broadcasts such as FOTF should not be aired openly where kids can hear it. In fact, some Christian sites were blocked by common web filter software due to "objectionable material" and "hate speech."

[reademnweep]

I'm sure you have been confronted with "something" inapproproate. Did YOUR clarity or judgement change? I think not. Why not? Because you too were raised with the same fix'ens.

[Bambino]

"They put standards ahead of profits."

If you believe this for one second, I have some swampland I'd like you to take a look at.

Clear Channel is kissing up so the FCC will let them buy more stations.

Wait 'til the Dems are back in power (sad to say, they will be someday) and they go after Rush, Hannity et. al. It won't seem like such a great thing then.

[Sabertooth]

So, because I don't have kids, my views don't count.

No, when you make straw man arguments, your points don't count.

When you don't have kids, you don't know the things you'll know when you do. It sounds terribly unfair now, but will make perfect sense later.

When you don't have kids, it's much less likely that you are mentally prepared to act as a responsible agent for their best interests. Not that all parents do their job, but parents have a better handle, generally, on what's best for kids than do non-parents.

So: given that the airwaves are a public resource, and that kids are a part of the public, who is best opositioned to speak for what's in the kids best interests in the administration of our shared public resource?

Parents.

That doesn't mean that everything revolves around kids, but they do need to be taken into account. You don't do that.

In the rest of your post you never again mention kids or children. Nor do you mention "airwaves" or "public resource," and it is on those bases that the FCC's action rests.

You do use variations of the word "I" over 16 times, as well as "my" and "me" another half-dozen times combined.

Once again: the airwaves are a public resource, so we have to share.

[reademnweep]

Opps...Talking about Stern, not Rush.

[cyncooper]

Why not? Stern is offensive to you,

Where did I say that?

[sheik yerbouty]

I thought he looked a bit piqued. I haven't been a regular listener for a number of years. Since you're in the know, bring me up to speed.

[Helms]

Howard Jew-boy Stern hung around long enough to allow cultural decay to open a little space for him to ooze through. I also call him a Jew-boy derisively because Howard's modus operandi has allways been to make money off the degradation of culture and all the while using his whinny voice and playing to a stereotype.

I will gladly take an observant Jew any day over the new secularised and bastardised Jews we see in much of media and entertainment.

If liberals were as interested in what we put in our heads as we put in our stomach, then Stern would be long gone.

As it now stands Stern has amassed an audience of voyeurs and boyish men who live vicariously through he and his guests.

Stern= mental junk food for the intellectually challenged.