Stern Threatens To Quit If Bush Signs Indecency Bill

Status
Not open for further replies.

w4rma

member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
724
Location
United States of America
March 11, 2004

The Howard Stern saga continues. Although Infinity is saying they will stand by their man, Stern is threatening to quit anyway if President Bush signs new indecency legislation into law. On this morning's show, Congressman Gary Ackerman called in to discuss the bill and assure Stern that he would not sign it. Ackerman said the vote on the bill is happening today, and that he feels it will easily pass through the right wing-controlled House but that the Senate may veto it. (The bill passed in the House this afternoon, see separate story.) Stern replied by saying that if Bush signs the bill, he will resign as soon as it becomes a law. In fact, he went as far as to say that he's so tired of getting censored every morning that he may resign anyway, even if the bill isn't signed by Bush. Stern lamented that he just wants to do comedy his way, and radio has become too much of a battle.

While he could just be saying that out of anger and frustration, Stern reiterated that FCC sources have told him that Chairman Michael Powell wants him off the air, whether it be now or after the next presidential election, and he dared Powell to issue his indecency fines now instead of waiting until after the election. He also made the point that he believes his suspension by Clear Channel was directly related to him denouncing President Bush in the past few months, rather than specific incidents of indecency.
...
http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=20819
 
Stern was funny about 8 years ago .. now he's just annoying .. all his show is is alot of "show me your tits" "have sex with me" blah blah blah ..

if he wants to go resign and cry in his corner let him .. otherwise he could be a man and fight it .. but I doubt that will happen ..
 
Howard who??
Who in the heck wants to watch that trash anyway? He acts like a overamped teen ager.
Jack
 
i am really starting to get pissed at the FCC. It's the parents jobs to monitor what their kids listen to or watch not the governement.

ohh by the way to keep it on opic Stern likes guns.:neener: I believe he has NY hard to get CCW.
 
1st Amendment. See the Bill of Rights for more information.
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. If he doesn't want to do that, he can have those stations pay his fines. If they don't want to do that, they can get their licenses yanked.

Stern is welcome to get an old (or new for that matter) shopping cart, and walk around NYC naked uder his overcoat, slobber, and yell obscenities at passersby on any street corner in Neuvo Jork like any other obsessive compulsive whose sexual development arrested at 13-14. His 1st Amendment rights are still intact. Bill or no bill.
 
Here come the moralists trying to enforce their views upon the rest of the country.

:rolleyes:


I can't believe all this ???? stemmed from "OMG JANET JACKSON SHOWED A BREAST ON TV"

Grow up prudes, it's human anatomy. Whoop de do.



I could give a rat's ??? what they show on TV. As long as the material is given a proper rating, the long mandated V-Chip that's been in TVs for the last several years can control what your kid can watch.

Also it should be the parent's duty to control what their kid watches, not the government.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It looks like Stern is desperately trying to get attention by claiming to be a victim. His "Bush is afraid of my criticism and so is trying to silence me" schtick doesn't parse.

Wanna bet no one in the Whitehouse knows or cares what Stern says?

Its Stern's distributors (whatever) that are setting up their own guidelines, and then telling Stern to either meet them, or not be carried.
 
Howard's rights aren't being violated.

After all, no rights are absolute. Besides, the First Amendment was written before the invention of radio, TV and amplifiers, and the Founders couldn't possibly have envisioned the advances in techology. So you see that the First Amendment is a bit obsolete. I'm only thinking of the children here.....
:rolleyes:
 
I can't believe all this ??? stemmed from "OMG JANET JACKSON SHOWED A BREAST ON TV"
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.

When you grow up some you will understand that not everything natural is acceptable in mixed company. Relieving ones self is a totally natural act, but how would you like it if I did it on your front lawn.

Grown ups know how to follow rules and act in public and failing that are able to take the consequences of the actions without making up weak excuses, like costume malfunctions and "the president doesn't like me"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
After all, no rights are absolute.
Rights are absolute, but they come with responsibilities. Those who can't live up to those responsibilities often find themselves to be pariahs.

A great example would be a person who comes up to me and says "GIMEE ALL YOUR MONEY!!!"

To which I reply "BLAMBLAMBLAM!!!"

His 1st Amendment right wasn't violated. He got to say what he wanted to (speech), he got to have his name in the obituaries (press), he got to meet Satan (religion), and he got to hang out with the rest of his kind in hell (assembly).

;)
 
I support Howards' right to quit! Seriously this is hardly a rights issue. Sterns "employer" wants him to change his show (regardless of what part offends clearchannel). Stern has the option of changing it or getting someone else to carry his show. The first amendment is to keep the govenment from punishing Howard for his expressing his ideas. As far as I've seen this isn't happening right now. If I pay you to talk expect me to regulate what say.


David
 
I can't stand Howard Stern. He's just a mouthy, in your face, shock jock who makes money playing on people's baser instincts. If he disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow I wouldn't notice. The reason I wouldn't notice is because I don't listen to him. Nobody forces me nor anyone else to listen to him.
Microbalrog
The circular firing squad again!
Good analogy.
Funny how so many so called "freedom lovers" are so ready to have the government limit other people's freedoms when it's someone they don't like.
 
At least Stern can say he is fighting for something. I'm not a huge fan of the show. But, he has every right to broadcast it. Noone turn on the Howard Stern show expecting it to be "family entertainment". There is a certain obligation that a consumer has for their OWN wellbeing.

And just so that everyone here knows. Howard Stern hasn't been FINED by the FCC for about 10 years. What happened recently is a company took him off their station BECAUSE THEY WANTED TOO. So by your own arguments the Howard Stern show hasnt crossed the line into "Indecency" just yet.
 
It is an oft repeated standard of liberal thinking that violence is more perverse than sex. If the left wins the culture war that conservatives speak of all the time, is it possible that a future FCC will see the seven words you can't say to be gun, rifle, pistol, revolver, bullet, holster, shoot?
 
It's funny. The relationship that the FCC has with the first amendment is VERY similar to the relationship that the ATF has with the second.

Both are AGENCIES made up of political appointees rather than elected officials. They are both mandated with "regulating" issues concerning VERY important RIGHTS of the people. And they both seem to have the authority to circumvent the due process of law in doing so. They can regulate via administrative policies rather than by actually act of congress.

It's really strange that the same person can have HUGE problems with the authority weilded by ONE of those agencies but, at the same time applaud the efforts of the other. And this applies to BOTH sides of the issue.
 
It's really strange that the same person can have HUGE problems with the authority weilded by ONE of those agencies but, at the same time applaud the efforts of the other. And this applies to BOTH sides of the issue.
Yep.

By the way, you forgot that both sides trot out children.

<George Carlin voice>
Gun! Rifle! Pistol! Revolver! Bullet! Holster! Shoot!
</George Carlin voice>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top