Stern Threatens To Quit If Bush Signs Indecency Bill

Good Riddance.

Cordex:

According to?

Click to expand...

I'd be interested in hearing of a better approach to ensuring access to the broadcast frequency spectrum. Without government regulation as per the assumption that it is public property, anyone and everyone could freely broadcast on any frequency their budget would allow. That's a perscription for eventual gridlock and lack of access for everyone.

Government regulation of the broadcast spectrum also allows portions of it to be reassigned to more economically productive uses as circumstances dictate.

This is one instance where Fed.Gov's involvement is justified. Just as with offshore drilling where the Government can ensure that it is done with minimal risk by requiring good practices (containment technology nearby, clean loading equipment, etc.) in order to secure a drilling lease.

Dear Howard,

Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36,
Thanks for the description of why you think that government enforced monopolies of technically-limited resources are better than capitalism, but you didn't answer my question.

I am so tired of Stern whining and bashing Bush that I can't even stand his show for more than a minute now.

Click to expand...

And if Howard wanted to turn his show into nothing but whining about President Bush, this bill would not effect his ability to stay on the air. He would face no fines for political speech which is what the freedom of speech clause in the 1st Amendment is all about.


Sorry if that is depressing to all of you libertines out there. But hey! Feel free to find some historical evidence that the founders and adopters of the 1st Amendment meant for it to cover post-colonial/federalist porn, or some other nonsense, and I'll give your evidence due consideration. Otherwise I'll just have to believe that you are reading things into the amendment that aren't there.

"Although Infinity is saying they will stand by their man..."

With Infinity broadcasting that's apparently the kiss of death to have them support you.

I've listened to an Infinity station for years, especially Don and Mike. They've had a lot of Infinity reps on their show over the years, and if there's anything that comes through, it's the feeling that these corporate people would sell their own Mothers into prostitution for 5 pieces of copper.

"Howard's rights aren't being violated. He just has to choose whether or not to abide by the rules that all of his radio station affiliates agreed to when they recieved lucrative licenses to broadcast on the public airwaves."


Hunter, here's the problem as I understand it from my days in radio...

There really AREN'T any rules (other than Carlin's 7 words you can't say) on what constitutes indecency.

There's no FCC handbook saying you can't talk about female body parts X, Y, and Z.

There's no stated rule indicating that scataogical references are banned from the air.

In the hearings before Congress in the aftermath of the Janet-Justin fisasco, I believe that it was Mel Karmizen who said "Give us written standards that we can follow, and we'll follow them."

The way it is right now, it's really a situation of "I can't define indecency, but I know it when I hear/see it."

In other words, it's all open to interpretation, and as we all know so well, what's offensive to some simply is NOT offensive to others.

I'm notoriously hard to offend, and I don't care if most of these stuff is on the air or not.

I'm not a parent, but if I were, I'd feel the same way, and I'd take steps to ensure that my children don't see what I want them to see.

But under NO circumstances do I expect the Government to be the arbiter of what I should and should not find offensive.

As Stern (I only listen to him occasionally, and since this started, have been listening a bit more. Still don't like him, though) said recently, "Pretty soon all's we'll be able to have on the air is Bible readings."

"Wrong it comes from her inflicting her morality ( or lack there of) along with her breast on an unsuspecting family audience during a time slot that specifically prohibits that type of behavior."

Joab,

Great. Then PUNISH JANET AND JUSTIN, and let the rest of us alone!

Please don't expect me to automatically prescribe to the moralistic stance of another.

And please don't expect me to believe that it's the Government's role to step in and take the place that the parent should be occupying.

There really AREN'T any rules (other than Carlin's 7 words you can't say) on what constitutes indecency.

There's no FCC handbook saying you can't talk about female body parts X, Y, and Z.

There's no stated rule indicating that scataogical references are banned from the air.

In the hearings before Congress in the aftermath of the Janet-Justin fisasco, I believe that it was Mel Karmizen who said "Give us written standards that we can follow, and we'll follow them."

The way it is right now, it's really a situation of "I can't define indecency, but I know it when I hear/see it."

In other words, it's all open to interpretation, and as we all know so well, what's offensive to some simply is NOT offensive to others.

Click to expand...

More significantly, the FCC's rules are so vaguely and broadly defined that they can declare anything indecent. They are, in effect, a law unto themselves (since Congress hasn't defined what can or can't be broadcast in any detail, the FCC gets to make up the law as they go along), and aside form being an executive agency are also effectively usurping the judiciary (by determining guilt/innocence and levying punishment in the form of fines and revoked licenses without benefit of a trial by jury).

Broadcast companies removing Howard Stern is not censorship if the broadcast company made the choice. Howard Stern can be fired like anybody else. However, the FCC using the threat of (almost completely arbitrary) fines to blackmail stations into removing Howard Stern is, in effect, censorship. That's what is so dangerous about the FCC's increased powers to levy fines; they can essentially give them to anyone because the scope of what is or isn't a violation is so large.

So it's OK for you to shoot him if he does?
And besides, he's not on TV, where you can switch the channel?

Click to expand...

Well you kind a missed the point. Mention nudity in an example and some people can't get to the next sentence.

It's an extreme example of the same principal. There are always rules to govern behavior. Without them we have anarchy.

Click to expand...

Without someone to enforce the rights/rules my "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" definitely would be in conflict with yours. And again we would have anarchy. :banghead:

For instance, to exercise the "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" someone has to define "peaceably" and that someone is [defined] in the DOI "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men". I don't always agree with the govt but that is why we have elections.

Click to expand...

DOI - (Declaration of Independence) just in case you are having trouble with the reference

BINGO, Sean!

The FCC is, in many cases, intimidating broadcasters by using it's bully power. It simply doesn't want indecency to be defined.

In the case of Don and Mike, an Infinity program on CBS's Viacom network, according to what they've said on the air, the company has issued new strictures -- nothing to do with sex, nothing to do with excretory functions, not even passing references such as "pissed off" are allowed.

And yet, this morning on Howard Stern's show, same company and organization and largely the same stations, he's talking up a blue streak about sex.

Don and Mike and another duo at CBS, Ron and Fez, have been screaming for years about the company playing favorites, backing some DJs in the face of the FCC and abandoning others when there's even the slightest hint of trouble.

The FCC wields, in many ways, powers that are very similar to those wielded by the IRS. There's no oversight, regulations are made up on the fly, and those in charge use their power to promote their own personal agendas.

My radio days are many years past (on a college station, and later for a short time a small FM station in a market that doesn't even really register), but what the program director at the the FM station said to me apparently hasn't changed (parphrased)...

"What you say is up to you. If you stay away from cursing, you should be OK, but there's no telling when you might say something that offends someone. If they complain to us, we smooth it over here. If they complain to the FCC, you're gone."

That's a great way to conduct business.

Luckily I was just filling in a couple of nights a week and didn't give a damn if I had the job or didn't.

HEY HOWARD!

Go to XM radio or Sirius. I think they have X rated channels.

I agree it would be nice to have defined parameters to the 100...th degree but then we all complain about the beaurocracy. Common sense would keep most people out of trouble. But there are many who if they have it, never use it.

Howard has plenty of sense, since he knows pushing the envelop sells and makes him wealthy. The only thing that makes little sense is the FCC rules are a moving target that can be adjusted to curry political favor with the public, congress, and the president.

I've been in multitudes of philosophical discussions during these many decades. Generally, the consensus is that we as humans should aspire to a general effort at improvement of ourselves. We're supposed to try to improve our social status, our economic status, and always work toward being nicer to our family, friends and neighbors.

Entailed in this are such things as cleanliness and manners. What's sometimes referred to as "growun-up behavior". We don't use foul language and expect others to respect for us knowing "those words". We note that it takes no talent to learn them. Any fool can do that. This all extends to public behavior, whether it's flaunting sexuality or disturbing others by the volume setting on one's boom-box.

Sure, we all know the "seven bad words". Sure, it's a thrill for some little kid to display such knowledge to his buddies. The problem comes about when the Howard Sterns of this world refuse to grow up and seem to find an eternal thrill in childish behavior.

Misbehaving children wind up getting spanked, sooner or later.

Folks may complain about the government getting into the business of controlling the morals of the airwaves. About all I can say is that if those using the airwaves push hard enough, the government will finally step in. The majority of the population doesn't want Sternlike language. I'm not saying this is a Good Thing, but it's the way life has always been and always will be. You (generic "you") may have no objection to Stern, et al, but you're in a definite minority--and you'll lose.

Just as there has been a rise in that sort of conservatism which leads to states' passage of CHL laws, there has been a rise in a similar conservatism which is fed up with childish behavior in the world of entertainment. You might regard l'affaire Stern as a symptom of that.

Art

Coolhand,

Boortz has already replied to your question about resource allocation here.

Extending the analogy, you'd have to say that not only must the oil companies extract the oil safely, they must then sell it only in ways (defined by govt to be) beneficial to society. That's what stations must prove they are doing when the license comes up for renewal. Imagine Exxon trying to prove something like that to President Nader's FCC chairman, and you'll see why no President should have such power.

Besides, it's tankers which cause most spills, not offshore rigs. More drilling just means more fish!

I started listening to Stern 10 years ago, mostly because of my Libertarian curiousity over what it was that the FCC hated so much about him. I had never enjoyed any radio show before. Now I listen daily. I'm glad to see the FCC is again promoting Howard...

Art,
I generally tend to agree with you, but here we differ.

Folks may complain about the government getting into the business of controlling the morals of the airwaves. About all I can say is that if those using the airwaves push hard enough, the government will finally step in. The majority of the population doesn't want Sternlike language. I'm not saying this is a Good Thing, but it's the way life has always been and always will be. You (generic "you") may have no objection to Stern, et al, but you're in a definite minority--and you'll lose.

Click to expand...

The majority of the population doesn't have to like something for it to be legal. Nor should we be required to constantly submit to the whim of the majority.

What's more, Stern is popular enough to attract a large audience that makes him a lot of money. An awful lot of money. If he was truly as unpopular as you and I wish he was, he'd be off the air. The truth is that for whatever reason a lot of people like him. We may not be among those people, but that doesn't give us the moral right to silence him.

J Jones,

One more time...now you know why the banging head. You might not like the Constitution and DOI but that is what this country was founded on.

Without someone to enforce the rights/rules my "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" definitely would be in conflict with yours. And again we would have anarchy. :banghead:

For instance, to exercise the "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" someone has to define "peaceably" and that someone is [defined] in the DOI "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men". I don't always agree with the govt but that is why we have elections.

Click to expand...

One more time...now you know why the banging head. You might not like the Constitution and DOI but that is what this country was founded on.

Click to expand...

It is one heck of a stretch to equate political appointees, such as those infesting the FCC, beholden to those who appointed them, to the constitution and DOI. If you actually read the DOI and Constitution you'd find such bothersome little things like the 1st, 9th and 10th amendments, which would seem to militate against the federal government setting up kangaroo courts like the FCC.

You have the right to change the station, turn off the radio, and boycott Howard's sponsors, etc. Keep banging your head, because I don't want you or anyone else telling me what I can and cannot read, watch or listen. I thought only "liberals" wanted to control the thoughts of our citizens? Guess I was wrong.

In reference to what Mr. Eatman posted, I have to disagree - majority rule with minority rights. Ninety-nine percent of Americans could disapprove of me reading, watching, listening to whatever I want, but so long as I do it in the privacy of my home, vehicle, etc., it is not their business.

cordex, I'll certainly not argue your point. I'm just pointing out "the way it is", right, wrong or indifferent. It's just the way things work, and not a lot different from anti-gun laws and such. And while Stern's audience may be "large", it's not large enough to keep him out of trouble...

I guess one way to look at it is that when a community is upset, the Constitution goes out the window. The size of the community varies, as do the issues. Emotional responses lead to acts or laws which may take years to correct--if at all.

Art

More significantly, the FCC's rules are so vaguely and broadly defined that they can declare anything indecent.

Click to expand...

This is what I find distrubing about the sudden move to raise the fine from $27,500 to $500,000. The reality is that even the $27,500 fine hasn't in any real way been applied--how many fines have there been over, say, the last five years? I suspect that you can count them on the fingers of both hands. (In decimal, not binary, wise guy. Sheesh!) And in all the ruckus over Janet Jackson, they still haven't fined her. They didn't fine Bono. They don't fine Howard Stern very often.

If they'd been fining folks the $27,500 for every offense, I doubt that there would be the alledged "problem" that they're now trying to solve. And do they solve it by actually applying the existing laws and regulations? No, of course not. They make this draconian $500,000 fine. So what happens if "they", with their "vaguely and broadly defined" rules decide that smoking is offensive, or violence, or speaking out against homosexuality, or dissing a candidate for office, or condeming abortion, all of which have actually been seriously discussed in the news in the last few days? You basically can instantly destroy anyone who's on the "wrong" side of an issue with a couple $500,000 fines. Being indecent or obscene isn't a half-million-dollar crime in my book--I think that's higher by far than the fine for manslaughter in most places. If you consider that it takes most people an entire lifetime to come up with $500,000, what they've done is essentially create a death penalty for whatever "they" decide doesn't pass muster.

(By the way, I'm not arguing that they should be applying the $27,500 all the time, merely that it makes no sense to dramatically increase the penalties for a "crime" that normally isn't being enforced in the first place.)

For instance, to exercise the "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" someone has to define "peaceably" and that someone is [defined] in the DOI "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men". I don't always agree with the govt but that is why we have elections.

Click to expand...

WRONG!!!! Your having a right assemble "peacably" doesn't mean you don't have a right to assemble "non-peacably" (say, waving guns during your demonstration), see also 9th amendment for that.

Now, according to the BOR, which is one of your founding documents, you can't really fine somebody without him undergoing a trial by jury. And that trial by jury should have nullification power.

Want to get a jury of 12 Californians to try Stern (he's Californian, right?) Tell them they may try the law as well as the facts of the case, and I'll bet parts of my body he'll walks.

You (generic "you") may have no objection to Stern, et al, but you're in a definite minority--and you'll lose.

Click to expand...

You (generic "you") may have no objection to assault weapons, et al, but you're in a definite minority--and you'll lose.

This is not right.. This might be "way" it is, but that's not right.
On this issue, Stern is on the good side, and I'm with Stern (and I never listened/watched his show.

(and I never listened/watched his show.

Click to expand...

Watch "Private Parts." It's an idealized version of his show and more humorous to boot.

The FCC serves a viable purpose. They are charged with asigning broadcast frequencys to specific entities in specific areas. Without the order they maintain every tom dick and harry could broadcast on any frequence they chose with any power amount they wanted. Chaos would be the result. Like anything else that government starts with good intentions it fails to state exact rules. They did their job with freqs and power output in market areas. What wasn't planned for was the Dudley Doogooder appointee who looked at the charter and said it doesn't say we cant do this. Rules slowly come out of thin air.