Howard Stern being silenced?

Don't really care about Howard. The "suits" have been censoring my favorite DJ's for years. Listened to Howard this morning on the way in, and it just confirmed that I really don't give a rat's azz about his show.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
:yawn: Howard should quit crying. Clear Channel has a perfect right to pick and choose what radio syndications they want to pick up. Several years ago there was a national syndicator that refused to carry Rush Limbaugh - was that a violation of free speech as well? :duh:
 

Toxick

Splat
Originally posted by vraiblonde
Several years ago there was a national syndicator that refused to carry Rush Limbaugh - was that a violation of free speech as well? :duh:


Depends.


Were they buckling under government pressure, or did they just choose not to carry him.
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
Originally posted by vraiblonde
:yawn: Howard should quit crying. Clear Channel has a perfect right to pick and choose what radio syndications they want to pick up. Several years ago there was a national syndicator that refused to carry Rush Limbaugh - was that a violation of free speech as well? :duh:

Good point. I can't stand Howard's ego or Rush's ego myself. I think the DCRTV ranter was questioning whether Clear Channel is being pressured politically to drop certain programs, or whether the company perceives such political pressure. I don't know if it is. I wouldn't be surprised if Bill Clinton used the FCC to pressure Limbaugh's employers.
 

hwyman3

New Member
Howard is correct that he does have a First Amendment right to say whatever he wants, as we exercise here in this forum. The difference is that nowhere are we guarenteed the right to have someone listen. Let us not forget that Howard Stern's employer, Viacom, started this whole mess with the Super Bowl half-time show.
 

Toxick

Splat
Originally posted by hwyman3
Howard is correct that he does have a First Amendment right to say whatever he wants, as we exercise here in this forum. The difference is that nowhere are we guarenteed the right to have someone listen.

This is a very valid argument. Or rather, it would be valid- if it were just ClearChannel deciding to drop Stern.

I remember when Clear Channel issued an edict to their channels not to play any Dixie Chicks music as a retaliation to their Anti-American sentiment expressed in whatever third-world craptank they were in.

I was totally behind Clear Channel for this.

However in this case it does not hold water - because Clear Channel is not the problem - a government organization is actively trying to silence anyone they have deemed obscene - using guidelines that are still unbeknownst to you, me, and as luck would have it, Howard Stern.

And I have yet to hear of any Supreme Court whisper at the constitutionality, or lack thereof, about the FCC issuing these sorts of sweeping vague guidelines that the nation must abide.

Frankly, I can't stand Howard Stern - but this whole things stinks to high-heaven, and it's only going to get uglier.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Originally posted by Toxick
Were they buckling under government pressure, or did they just choose not to carry him.
Rush said they buckled under pressure but who knows? The fact is they could have gone public with the pressure and let the listeners rail to the FCC, rather than just buckle, if they really wanted to have a piece of the Limbaugh audience. So I'm inclined to believe it was an internal decision, just like this Clear Channel thing.
 

Toxick

Splat
Originally posted by vraiblonde
Rush said they buckled under pressure but who knows?

Well... Rush says a lot of things. Like Stern, he's got a bit of a paranoia/ego problem. I'd take what he says about that with a grain of salt.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
The fact is they could have gone public with the pressure and let the listeners rail to the FCC, rather than just buckle, if they really wanted to have a piece of the Limbaugh audience. So I'm inclined to believe it was an internal decision, just like this Clear Channel thing.

This is true - however, you're giving more credit to Clear Channel than I am. From what I see, Clear Channel (and Viacom etc) are being pressured by the FCC to adhere to these undisclosed and unprecidented 'decency' guidelines.

That's my whole gripe. If Clear Channel had just done it because they don't like Stern, I would have a hell of a lot more respect for them for their integrity - and I would not be tossing around words like fascism.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Originally posted by Toxick
From what I see, Clear Channel (and Viacom etc) are being pressured by the FCC to adhere to these undisclosed and unprecidented 'decency' guidelines.
The guidelines aren't unprecedented - ask the South Park guys. They've had to fight and negotiate with FCC on practically every episode. Of course, then they realized that the bleeps are funnier than if they'd said the actual word, so.....:lol:

FCC has nixed a lot of things producers came up with - you hear about it all the time. The only difference is they've let Stern go on for years, getting progressively worse, and have finally decided to enforce their standards.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Here ya go!

http://www.fcc.gov/parents/content.html

Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. To be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test:

An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;

The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and

The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Sounds like Stern to me. :shrug:
 
D

darkriver4362

Guest
The thing is...I understand where all of the "what about the kids" people are coming from....I just want to know what is so hard about switching the channel?? There are dozens of others to choose from....I mean...who actually has heard something on the radio and have been SO offended that they actually whine and write to the govornment about...I mean on their own, not hopping on this recent bandwagon?
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Originally posted by darkriver4362
I just want to know what is so hard about switching the channel??
We shouldn't have to switch the channel to avoid obscenity. Plus that, only one syndicate has dropped Stern - he's on a zillion different stations every day. This whole Clear Channel thing is a tempest in a teapot, brewed by Howard Stern himself to get publicity.

The crassness of Stern won't kill anyone, but it does contribute to the degradation of our society as a whole. Maybe my daughter doesn't listen to Stern, but she has to listen when her male classmates think they can talk to her the way Howard talks to women and treat her the way Howard treats them. And, yes, kids do that.

who actually has heard something on the radio and have been SO offended that they actually whine and write to the govornment about
Lots of people. Apparently Janet's little wardrobe malfunction caused people to light up the phone lines to the network in record numbers. I can't imagine radio is a whole lot different.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
It is the height of absurdity...

...when the sacred cry of 'freedom of speech' and all the images that it invokes of despots beaten down, chains broken and liberty attained for all through basic inalienable rights for everyone is used to defend...

Fartman.

That said, I'm fine with him being on any media after 10 pm.

Howard Stern has made a career of appealing to the absolute lowest common human denominators and he has made millions accepting the abdication of his audiences responsibility to have ANY standards at all.

I find alot of things witty, entertaining, educational and/or amusing.

I have never, ever seen or heard anything on radio or TV that has absolutely nothing to offer...except Howard.

The man knows his market.
 
D

darkriver4362

Guest
Originally posted by vraiblonde
We shouldn't have to switch the channel to avoid obscenity.

I mean that's just an opinion and I respect that, but I don't like country or gospel music and I have to switch the channel to avoid that....that's just one of the things I have to do. I don't like rap that much either, but I have to change the channel. My point is...everyone has to change the channel to get rid of something they don't like. Millions of people listen to Howard Stern.....I would love to see a pie chart showing who is for and who is against pulling Mr. Stern from the radio. And basically, down here in Southern Maryland, we only have Howard on one channel 106.7. I just do not want any govornment telling me what is obsene, what is not, it just makes me mad. It's not right. Like you said, he's not going to kill anyone, he just makes ten's of millions of peoples morning ride to work a bit more bearable.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Originally posted by darkriver4362
I just do not want any govornment telling me what is obsene, what is not, it just makes me mad.
Well, get over it. The feds, based on the public at-large, decide what is and isn't appropriate for public broadcast.

The FCC generally goes by what the majority of the viewing public takes as obscene or inappropriate. Once upon a time, they didn't show even married couples sharing the same bed. They couldn't refer to Lucy as "pregnant" with Little Ricky. Times have changed and now we don't find the word "pregnant" offensive - but we still find spanking lesbians to be inappropriate for broadcast.

Write your Congressman, but don't expect a lot of action. Many more people are writing saying thanks for finally cleaning up the airwaves. :shrug:
 
D

darkriver4362

Guest
I'd give it a few months, I don't think much will happen anyways. I have yet to meet one person that thinks that yanking certain talk show people off the air to be the key, even my ultra conservative boss. If Howard goes, I want Rikki Lake, Montel, and Jenny Jones all off of TV as well...fair is fair.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Originally posted by darkriver4362
If Howard goes, I want Rikki Lake, Montel, and Jenny Jones all off of TV as well...fair is fair.
I'd take Springer off, too. People only watch that for the same reason Larry will watch Stern at night - to see how far people will go in humiliating themselves. If I were Supreme Dictator, I'd line up every person on those shows and on the cop shows and have them executed. They serve no purpose in society and make no beneficial contribution.

If it were up to me, it would be a Nick at Nite world! :lol:
 
Top