D
darkriver4362
Guest
Lol oh no not nick at nite...Sanford and Son is funny sometimes though. I think Springer and Judge Judy are retarded.
Howard Stern being silenced?
- Thread starter Tonio
- Start date
Hessian
Well-Known Member
The whole shock jock genre is generally filth. If radio stations want the embarrassment, the complaints, the lawsuits that follow their stunts...then let them pay, and keep apologizing.
When Greaseman came back to DC after being booted, I e-mailed 94.7 and told them it was only a matter of a few months before they would face a wave of reaction/and contrived apologies.
What comes out of the mouth, reflects the heart.
I'm glad Greaseman is gone, I am glad Stern is dying on life support....this is not an amendment issue, it is a business and decency issue.
When Greaseman came back to DC after being booted, I e-mailed 94.7 and told them it was only a matter of a few months before they would face a wave of reaction/and contrived apologies.
What comes out of the mouth, reflects the heart.
I'm glad Greaseman is gone, I am glad Stern is dying on life support....this is not an amendment issue, it is a business and decency issue.
D
darkriver4362
Guest
I don't think it is a bad idea to go to XM radio, I am going to get one. It's just a matter of time before they go censor that too. If it were up to me janet could have just taken it all off i dont' care lol..
P.S. XM installed is going for about 250$ right now plus 10$ a month, not bad.
P.S. XM installed is going for about 250$ right now plus 10$ a month, not bad.
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
Can the government really be trusted to keep indecency (which has never been specifically defined, in my opinion) off the airwaves without pushing a political agenda? What's to stop a public official from going after a network for the actions of its journalists under the guise of policing indecency? There is a precedent, even though it was 30 years ago--Nixon's Administration used the government apparatus to try to silence journalists like Daniel Schorr and Woodward & Bernstein. I think Bill Clinton was tempted to do the same thing to Michael Isikoff.
You're right, Tonio. We have this horrifying fascist government that kills people and imprisons them for no reason and will certainly prohibit all forms of free expression if we so much as allow them to regulate broadcast. So, by all means, let's go to all porn, all the time - it's MUCH better than letting our horrifying fascist government have ANY kind of power.
I gave you the friggin' link to the FCC, which defined the standards pretty clearly. What do you want? A list of every single word, gesture, act or expression? Are you that sheepish that you can't recognize obscenity or pornography when you see it?
I just find it stunning that some of you have this all or nothing mentality - if we say no to nudity and the f-word on prime time, we must also say no to Barney and Sesame Street. If listening to Howard Stern humiliate handicapped people and women is that important to you, then you've got real problems and shouldn't get a say in government anyway.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Think about this...
...Howard Stern and the Janet boob thing have people jumping up and down like organ grinder monkeys about 'free speech' and censorship.
Stern, it's butt bongo and girls kissing. Janet, it's her breast.
People can go pick up a movie or go online and see everything. All in the privacy of their own home. Whenever they want.
To decry limits set on radio and TV is to say one thing:
What the organ grinder monkeys REALLY want is for you to HAVE to see it. They want it in YOUR face.
These same people would riot in the streets if the Mclaughlin Group came on at half time and discussed NAFTA for 10 minutes.
If a full symphony orchestra was rolled out there, we'd have mass suicide.
We have a juevenille streak in this nation that is clearly NOT about limits on what the individual wants to see, hear and do. They want to have rights as to where and when as well, including YOUR living room.
I guess it's an acceptance thing?
...Howard Stern and the Janet boob thing have people jumping up and down like organ grinder monkeys about 'free speech' and censorship.
Stern, it's butt bongo and girls kissing. Janet, it's her breast.
People can go pick up a movie or go online and see everything. All in the privacy of their own home. Whenever they want.
To decry limits set on radio and TV is to say one thing:
What the organ grinder monkeys REALLY want is for you to HAVE to see it. They want it in YOUR face.
These same people would riot in the streets if the Mclaughlin Group came on at half time and discussed NAFTA for 10 minutes.
If a full symphony orchestra was rolled out there, we'd have mass suicide.
We have a juevenille streak in this nation that is clearly NOT about limits on what the individual wants to see, hear and do. They want to have rights as to where and when as well, including YOUR living room.
I guess it's an acceptance thing?
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
Originally posted by vraiblonde
You're right, Tonio. We have this horrifying fascist government that kills people and imprisons them for no reason and will certainly prohibit all forms of free expression if we so much as allow them to regulate broadcast. So, by all means, let's go to all porn, all the time - it's MUCH better than letting our horrifying fascist government have ANY kind of power.
I gave you the friggin' link to the FCC, which defined the standards pretty clearly. What do you want? A list of every single word, gesture, act or expression? Are you that sheepish that you can't recognize obscenity or pornography when you see it?
I just find it stunning that some of you have this all or nothing mentality - if we say no to nudity and the f-word on prime time, we must also say no to Barney and Sesame Street. If listening to Howard Stern humiliate handicapped people and women is that important to you, then you've got real problems and shouldn't get a say in government anyway.
Oh, jeez. Give me some credit, willya? I wasn't calling our government fascist. I was saying that power corrupts. We as humans have a hunger for power, and given the right circumstances, we are capable of doing anything to preserve that power.
And yes, I read the list you provided from the FCC. I believe it's not specific enough, because we are talking about making laws. A law that's written too vaguely or broadly might be interpreted to give a government agency the power to do anything it wants. I think if the F-word is cause for a fine, then the law should say so and not just rely on "community standards." It's the same argument against gun control--"assault weapon" is too loosely defined. From reading the Gun Control thread, it seems that many gun owners simply don't trust the government to regulate gun ownership. I can appreciate that point of view.
Plus, "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" is WAY too subjective for me. Same with "appeals to the prurient interest," which sounds like broadcasters have a responsibility to make sure no one gets a boner. That could have been used to ban "Charlie's Angels" and "Dukes of Hazzard" in the '70s.
You're right about the value of Howard Stern's show. He uses shock material as a crutch and he's a blowhard who's covering up for his own insecurities. I see the issue as not whether Howard should be using the F-word on the air (he shouldn't) but whether polticians and bureaucrats should be pressuring his employers to fire him (they shouldn't).
If anyone should pressure Infinity and Clear Channel to drop Stern, it should be us as parents and consumers, not the government. As a parent, I think I should be the one deciding what's appropriate for my kids, not some bureaucrat who got his or her job through political intrigue or back-room dealings. Too many parents don't control what their kids watch, and I see that as the real problem.
Toxick
Splat
Well, there have always been obscenity laws, and I don't have a problem with having obscenity reined in.
The whole thing is, two weeks ago Howard Stern was not considered obscene by the powers that be - and now he is.
WTF?
Personally, I don't think he's obscene. He does some racy things, but as far as I can see, he still on this side of the obscenity line. And herein lies the entire crux of the argument - people like vrai see Stern as obscene - I do not. I think he's a pig. I think he's uncouth. I think he's paranoid and annoying. But millions of people like him, and he's an American and should have the right to be an paranoid annoying uncouth pig.
But there sits the FCC with itchy trigger fingers redefining obscene - and frankly, it's not their job to decide or define a god damned thing. I'm no law expert, but from what I can see, that should be the job of the courts, and I haven't heard them chime in yet.
Toxick
Splat
Apparently not.
You see Howard Stern as obscene.
I do not.
So there are going to have to be some more specific standards, because people are not going to agree on where the line is drawn.
Pot. Kettle.
How many times have you sarcastically thrown your hands up in this entire argument and said, "How about we just go to hardcore porn on network TV at prime time".
I don't listen to Stern, and it's not that important to me.
What is important to me is that I don't want Big Brother telling me that I can't.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
There's no gun to my...
...head and there's no gestapo in the home.
Are there any restrictions you support?
...head and there's no gestapo in the home.
Are there any restrictions you support?
Toxick
Splat
Re: There's no gun to my...
Then how can it be "in your face". One push of the button and - WHAMMO - it's completely and utterly OUT of your face. In fact, if you were so inclined, you could avoid going to the channel where Stern broadcasts altogether.
Totally not in your face.
Sure. I'm not an anarchist.
I am glad that guns have to be registered. I like the movie rating system. I'm glad you have to be at least 16 to drive a car. I like parental advisories on music albums. I'm glad that things like theft and murder are illegal.
A whole bunch more.
Then how can it be "in your face". One push of the button and - WHAMMO - it's completely and utterly OUT of your face. In fact, if you were so inclined, you could avoid going to the channel where Stern broadcasts altogether.
Totally not in your face.
Sure. I'm not an anarchist.
I am glad that guns have to be registered. I like the movie rating system. I'm glad you have to be at least 16 to drive a car. I like parental advisories on music albums. I'm glad that things like theft and murder are illegal.
A whole bunch more.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
So, limits on...
...on halftime shows are 'gestapo'?
I already said I have no problem with Stern being on late.
I'm constantly amazed that people resort to inflamatory terms like 'gun to head' and 'gestapo' when reasonable objections are raised. You are implying that as long as I can turn my head or flip a channel I should just deal with whatever goes? Maybe the "Incest dating Game" (wait, didn't Howard already do that?).
Stern has been in and out of trouble for over 20 years because it works for him. It gains him audience.
You can change the subject if you like away from cencorship but what I meant, specifically, was are you in favor of ANY limits as to what Howard says and where he says it? What he shows?
Are you in favor of any limits as to what is on prime time television, specifically, say, oh, umm..the Super Bowl half time show?
Just in case you have no clue as to who or what the Gestapo were and did:
They arrested, deported and saw to the execution of millions of non-combatants during World War II. I don't remember if butt bongo or flashing a boob were executable offenses. They did hold a lot of guns to peoples heads however. Pulled the trigger to.
...on halftime shows are 'gestapo'?
I already said I have no problem with Stern being on late.
I'm constantly amazed that people resort to inflamatory terms like 'gun to head' and 'gestapo' when reasonable objections are raised. You are implying that as long as I can turn my head or flip a channel I should just deal with whatever goes? Maybe the "Incest dating Game" (wait, didn't Howard already do that?).
Stern has been in and out of trouble for over 20 years because it works for him. It gains him audience.
You can change the subject if you like away from cencorship but what I meant, specifically, was are you in favor of ANY limits as to what Howard says and where he says it? What he shows?
Are you in favor of any limits as to what is on prime time television, specifically, say, oh, umm..the Super Bowl half time show?
Just in case you have no clue as to who or what the Gestapo were and did:
They arrested, deported and saw to the execution of millions of non-combatants during World War II. I don't remember if butt bongo or flashing a boob were executable offenses. They did hold a lot of guns to peoples heads however. Pulled the trigger to.
Toxick
Splat
Re: So, limits on...
No.
Now, while I thought that the reaction to Jackson's nipple was way over the top, I do agree that the entire scene was inappropriate, and should not have happened, and stuff like that should be punished to ensure that it will not happen again.
And the big argument about the boob-flash was "if we had known it was coming, we could have avoided it - but it came from out of nowhere and that's why it's wrong, and that's why the entire country's pucker-factor went to 9.5". But apparently that's not why it was wrong. The entire concept of a boob anywhere you might stumble across it - or where chiiiildren can be scarred for their entire lives, flushing their fragile innocent youth straight down the toilet - is the problem.
But anyway, I'm not talking about boobs on TV. I'm talking about "shock radio".
I don't think that "reasonable objections" are being raised. If I thought they were reasonable, I would not be arguing with you. The reason I resorted to inflamatory terms like 'gun to head' and 'gestapo' is because you are using overblown terms like "in your face".
Just because something is on the radio does not mean that its "in your face". You are not being forced to deal with it. It's not like a Gay Pride Parade on Constitution Avenue blocking traffic and forcing people to confront freakish atrocities that they consider to be an affront to their sensibilities.
It's a radio show. A crude one - one you don't like - but just a radio show.
As much as it's being compared to porn here, it's not pornography. It's not criminal. It's not obscene. It's just a stupid show and yes - since you can turn your head or flip a channel, you should just ignore it and move on with your life. I don't like Stern, so that's exactly what I do. I put on the news or Haber & Erin or Diamond in the Morning.
What he shows?
I am in favor the limits that were in place a few weeks ago.
What I don't like is that the line moved. The line moved in a direction that is more oppressive, more restrictive, and chips away at previous freedoms. I do not like that.
I'm amazed at how many history lessons I get on these boards.
Yes. I know who and what the Gestapo were.
No.
Now, while I thought that the reaction to Jackson's nipple was way over the top, I do agree that the entire scene was inappropriate, and should not have happened, and stuff like that should be punished to ensure that it will not happen again.
And the big argument about the boob-flash was "if we had known it was coming, we could have avoided it - but it came from out of nowhere and that's why it's wrong, and that's why the entire country's pucker-factor went to 9.5". But apparently that's not why it was wrong. The entire concept of a boob anywhere you might stumble across it - or where chiiiildren can be scarred for their entire lives, flushing their fragile innocent youth straight down the toilet - is the problem.
But anyway, I'm not talking about boobs on TV. I'm talking about "shock radio".
I don't think that "reasonable objections" are being raised. If I thought they were reasonable, I would not be arguing with you. The reason I resorted to inflamatory terms like 'gun to head' and 'gestapo' is because you are using overblown terms like "in your face".
Just because something is on the radio does not mean that its "in your face". You are not being forced to deal with it. It's not like a Gay Pride Parade on Constitution Avenue blocking traffic and forcing people to confront freakish atrocities that they consider to be an affront to their sensibilities.
It's a radio show. A crude one - one you don't like - but just a radio show.
As much as it's being compared to porn here, it's not pornography. It's not criminal. It's not obscene. It's just a stupid show and yes - since you can turn your head or flip a channel, you should just ignore it and move on with your life. I don't like Stern, so that's exactly what I do. I put on the news or Haber & Erin or Diamond in the Morning.
What he shows?
I am in favor the limits that were in place a few weeks ago.
What I don't like is that the line moved. The line moved in a direction that is more oppressive, more restrictive, and chips away at previous freedoms. I do not like that.
I'm amazed at how many history lessons I get on these boards.
Yes. I know who and what the Gestapo were.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I listen to Howard Stern in the morning and Don and Mike in the afternoons, and have been for years, but I'm starting to tune them out because I'm getting so sick and tired of hearing them whining about the FCC. They act like it's the end of America because they can't say "dick" or "BM eater" on the air. For years they couldn't say it, and they got a long just fine. Then they've been slowly pushing the envelope for years and now the FCC is saying enough is enough. America isn't going to perish just because some ego maniacs can't talk dirty on the radio.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Look...
...when I was in Jr. High we all listened to this crazy guy on the radio, every day. Rank outs. Y'o momma jokes. All of it. When he called Air Florida and asked for pricing for a one way to the 14th street bridge we laughed out 15 year old asses off.
Then, the adults came along and busted his ass. We popped off "unfair!" or "Cencorship!" ...but at the end of the day all it was was a smart ass who crossed one line to many finally being told he'd gone to far. The adults did their job.
I'll watch a couple minutes at a time of Howard on TV and in that few minutes it's the same thing he was doing 20 years ago MINUS witty comments. All Howard does now is JUST the base stuff. He knows his audience. The guy has DEPENDED on the FCC from day one.
Right now he's being picked on, the line moved, as you say.
Well, another way of looking at it is simply the feds have set up a radar trap on that stretch of road everyone has been speeding on for the last few years. They are simply enforcing EXISTING rules, not making new ones.
This whole thing is simple parenting. People simply want to hear the words "Appropriate" once in awhile. Nobody is worried about their kid seeing a boob. 75% of my kids have boobs. Two each. What bothers people is, and you can't argue this one, the 'in your face' aspect of it.
Howard is a happy, willing punching bag right now. He'll be fine. It's worked for him, getting in trouble, for a whole career.
Absent Janet we would not be talking about Howard or radio stations.
...when I was in Jr. High we all listened to this crazy guy on the radio, every day. Rank outs. Y'o momma jokes. All of it. When he called Air Florida and asked for pricing for a one way to the 14th street bridge we laughed out 15 year old asses off.
Then, the adults came along and busted his ass. We popped off "unfair!" or "Cencorship!" ...but at the end of the day all it was was a smart ass who crossed one line to many finally being told he'd gone to far. The adults did their job.
I'll watch a couple minutes at a time of Howard on TV and in that few minutes it's the same thing he was doing 20 years ago MINUS witty comments. All Howard does now is JUST the base stuff. He knows his audience. The guy has DEPENDED on the FCC from day one.
Right now he's being picked on, the line moved, as you say.
Well, another way of looking at it is simply the feds have set up a radar trap on that stretch of road everyone has been speeding on for the last few years. They are simply enforcing EXISTING rules, not making new ones.
This whole thing is simple parenting. People simply want to hear the words "Appropriate" once in awhile. Nobody is worried about their kid seeing a boob. 75% of my kids have boobs. Two each. What bothers people is, and you can't argue this one, the 'in your face' aspect of it.
Howard is a happy, willing punching bag right now. He'll be fine. It's worked for him, getting in trouble, for a whole career.
Absent Janet we would not be talking about Howard or radio stations.
So where would you draw the line? Just you, personally.
Like I said before, maybe my daughters won't listen to Stern but they'll surely have to listen to the boys in their class emulate Stern. And that's not fair. If people weren't so stupid and had their own standards, we wouldn't even need an FCC. As it stands, most people don't have the brains God gave little green apples so they must be babysat.
As far as "I don't want the government telling me what to do" - get over it. The government tells you what to do every day. They tell you how much you're going to contribute to the country AND they tell you what you're going to spend it on. They tell you who you can and can't marry. They tell you how you can and cannot defend youself. They tell you how old you have to be to vote or have a beer.
This is all part of "promoting the general welfare", as are obscenity laws in broadcast.
And who decides these standards, hmmm? Where is the line drawn between a stickered CD and a non-stickered one? Who decides what is appropriate for young teens and gets a PG-13?
Why shouldn't "artists" be able to release a CD with anything they want on it and market it to Kindergartners if they want? Why can't a 4th grader go to an R-rated movie unattended?
Do you see where I'm going with this? Once you remove the public standards, anything goes. If some crackMom doesn't care if her 7th grader is out getting drunk every night and listening to Insane Clown Posse, what business is it of yours?
justin anemone
AKA BK
Re: So, limits on...
There's a difference.
People know where and when Howard is on the radio. They know when to avoid it and how to avoid it.
People were NOT expecting the "surprise" at the halftime show. It was a sabotage and should not have reflected on daily programming that has been set in stone for years and years.
I know you don't care for Howard, but wait till someone has a problem with a show you like and you'll be of a different mindset.
There's a difference.
People know where and when Howard is on the radio. They know when to avoid it and how to avoid it.
People were NOT expecting the "surprise" at the halftime show. It was a sabotage and should not have reflected on daily programming that has been set in stone for years and years.
I know you don't care for Howard, but wait till someone has a problem with a show you like and you'll be of a different mindset.
Toxick
Splat
I would personally draw the line where it was drawn a few weeks ago.
Maybe they should ban boys in school then?
Maybe the boys' father's are jerks, and they emulate their fathers in school - maybe we should ban fathers.
Maybe if we eliminate all interpersonal contact with other human beings, we can finally stop people from being offended at all times.