Yo, I know this will get moved quickly (moderator - please leave it for awhile if you can). But, if you are keeping "abreast" of what is going on with the FCC and Howard Stern, you might want to sign this petition. You may not like Howard Stern, but if the FCC stifles his right to free speech, they will move on to the next target - and eventually they will get to someone you DO like. You should control what you and your children listen to, not the FCC and the government. That is why you can turn off the radio and tv, or change the station. And, that is why you should monitor your children's activities. Forward this to your friends. http://www.stopfcc.com/ PEACE
Nah.....Trust me.....I normally DESPISE most all government intrusion. But in the case of Howard Stern, and others like him, the government, for once, is probably right. There is definitely a difference between being a "prude" and outright, flagrant filth. Stern and others have crossed the line from being funny to being disgusting and filthy. Bono and Ozzy are fine with me, but you don't go on TV and use extremely vulgar language. You just don't, period. There must SOME standard of decency.
obvious problem with that is who decides that standard. Ashcroft's idea of "decent" is a lot different than yours.
If I understand the issue, no one is saying you should be allowed to use extremely vulgar language on TV. There are current standards in place, and most people - even Stern - abide by them.
I am a big an advocate of the First Amendment as anyone else, but I don't feel particularly threatened if the FCC plugs Howard Stern's toilet mouth or puts a lid on the other pollution being spewed by "shock jocks." As for TV, I look on it kind of like driving around in my neighborhood. I don't want a bunch of seedy strip clubs and porno shops there, and I don't see why the people, through their representatives, can't insist that some minimal standards be applied to TV land. We know the broadcasters can't be trusted to do the job themselves. Hell, they can't even report the news without trying to use it to promote some asshole's book trying to capitalize on 9/11. I am very sensitive to the concern that future administrations might try to use a similar procedure to silence political speech they disagree with. In fact, that has been done in the past, using something known as the Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcasters to air "both" sides of controversial issues. Obviously, it would make talk radio untenable, and many would like to see that happen. Since we have a congress and a Supreme Court who think it is perfectly appropriate to ban political ads before an election, I don't have much faith that they would do much if anything to protect political speech over the air. At worst however, that is a speculative threat, while our airwaves are being inundated in pollution now. Let's clean up the mess and worry about political speech when the time comes.
but when the political speech is threatened...then we come out firing on all cylinders!!!! because it will go there eventually.
i think stern had a huge fine...1.7 million back in the mid 90's. did he go after clinton at the time???
Well, we've already gone there and no one seemed to give a flip. The Supreme Court found the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law to be OK, even though it imposes draconian restraints on political speech. The Court's opinion is one of its worst embarrassments ever, although lately they seem to be trying very hard to keep topping themselves on that score.
I love HS and miss him ( they pulled him off the air here last month)...but even i have to admit that he's crossed a lot of lines in the sand.....he and others have gone too far. BTW,,I always laugh when they start these freedom of speech petitions .....not sure the founding fathers would be elated to protect Howard's right to talk about anal...