Stern Threatens To Quit If Bush Signs Indecency Bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
and the bottom line is...

This is the best thing to happen to Stern in years. The kind of thing he thrives on. His face is everywhere. CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, every Internet news website on the planet.

Anyone remember when he *swore* he was running for Govenor of NY, but conveniently backed out (once he'd gotten tons of news coverage to boost his ratings)? He won't quit.

Don't get me wrong, I am not for censoring him. He's not doing anything different than he's done for 20 years. And hey, I like his show.

But don't feel too bad for him, because he's not going anywhere.
 
All I know is that the legislation in congress is to allow the FCC to increase the maximum fine amount. This is fine by me. The FCC needs to be able to fine people enough to make them take notice if it is to do its job. (We can discuss the need for the FCC at all.)

The FCC does infringe upon free speech. It does have some rules that broadcast networks agree to go by. They can't say $(%&^<, $%^%*, ^%&*( or %(*$$ on the air. They limit how much skin you can show on broadcast television. So what? If the only, ONLY gun control laws were that I had to wear pants when at a public range and that my gun stocks were not allowed to be purple I could live with that. It doesn't detract from the purpose of the gun even though it would be infringement.

If broadcast TV or radio were your only outlet for getting your message out, then you might have even more a point. You can air your program on cable, satellite or the web. You can put it out on video or audio recordings with little or no restriction. Better yet, you can discuss almost any topic without the use of *^($, &*%%, *&%%, #%#^, or *%%. Howard has been able to do it for years. You can describe the most bizarre sex acts or discuss whatever other topic you want without restriction just like we do here on TheHighRoad. It is civil and polite and it aides in getting your message across.

Howard is crude and obnoxious and many find him offensive. He revels in resisting authority and criticizing government, but he hasn't been arrested, assassinated, gagged, imprisoned or shut down in anyway. This is what the first amendment is about.


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

He can retire whenever he wants to retire. Take your millions and move on:rolleyes:
 
Howard will not quit
because quiting will violate his contract
and loose him money

Howard will continue doing his show until he is fired.
Then he will collect a huge settlement and move to Satellite radio
 
Stern is a professional who made an agreement to abide by certain rules and regulations when he entered that profession and remained in it for decades. He has repeatedly violated that agreement and gotten away relatively without sanction. Now that he is receiving a sanction, he's crying about his rights. But this isn't about rights. This is about violation of the agreement he willfully and knowingly entered.

As for rights being absolute, do you think you have an absolute right to life? You shouldn't, as the Constitution gives the gov't the authority to take it under certain circumstances. Do you think you have an absolute right to property? There again, the gov't can take it under certain circumstances. The Constitution embodies checks and balances on the part of the gov't and on the part of citizens.
 
The 5th Amendment for one place. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . [nor] twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

So we've three protections against subjecting someone to death without due process. That would make no sense unless the national gov't, the only gov't to which the Constitution applied at the time of its signing, had the authority to enact the death penalty.

We've also got two references to taking of property being precluded without due process. So, eminent domain is tacitly authorized.
 
By the way, you forgot that both sides trot out children.
Click to expand...

Now that you mention it, your right. And for some reason i think conservatives trying to ban something "for the children" is pretty dang funny.
 
Your rights are limited by the rights of others.

Stern violated nobody's rights. You don't like the show, TURN IT OFF.
Click to expand...
I can't believe what I'm about say.....I agree with Microbalog. :)

The FCC should only manage frequency allocation to prevent interference. If people didn’t want to hear what Stern was broadcasting then they would not listen to him and he would be fired for lack of revenue. It would be a marketplace decision. This puritan streak in our government is somewhat disheartening. Will John Kerry's (or whomever) FCC declare Rush Limbaugh 's show as "hate speech" and have him fined off the air?

I can't stand Mr. Stern, but apparently lots of folks do like him. The puritans at the FCC are just trying to protect them from themselves…It’s disgusting.
 
Walking the Gangplank.

Howard Stern - Rush Limbaugh -Mike Gallagher - etc....all in the same boat.

All have booked passage on the Titanic. Taking as many fools along with them as possible.

12-34hom.
 
Re: Janet Jackson Superbowl Strip Show
Programming was not billed as, nor generally recognized as featuring nudity so parents had no way of knowing to censor their own children from that particular kind of display. Thus, this action was wrong. I'm all for freedom of speech and such, but parents should be free to make their own decisions on this sort of thing too. If they can't censor what their own kids see even by sitting down and watching TV with 'em, then there's a problem.

Re: Howard Stern
Never really listened to him, but by reputation he doesn't come across as someone that parents who are offended by sexual material or drunken dwarves (?!?) would otherwise be sitting down to listen to with their kids. As such, I don't see why we'd fine him for using profanity or being sexually explicit. If you don't like listening to that sort of thing, you wouldn't be listening to him anyway, right?
 
Grow up prudes, it's human anatomy. Whoop de do...Also it should be the parent's duty to control what their kid watches, not the government.
Click to expand...

So it's ok for a man to walk naked through your neighborhood and stop and try to talk to your children. He's being nice and non-threatening so your kids can just choose to ignore him, right? It's an extreme example of the same principal. There are always rules to govern behavior. Without them we have anarchy.

For instance, to exercise the "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" someone has to define "peaceably" and that someone is given 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. :banghead:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm going to agree with tiberius, and through him agree with MicroBalrog. :D What is heard on radio should be decided by a free market. If people didn't want to hear rude behavior on the radio, then private businesses wouldn't broadcast them.

Howard Stern warrants a simple turn of a tuner knob, not Federal involvement.
 
So it's ok for a man to walk naked through your neighborhood and stop and try to talk to your children. He's being nice and non-threatening so your kids can just choose to ignore him, right? It's an extreme example of the same principal.
Click to expand...

I would most certainly watch such a person with a very careful eye but I wouldn't keep him from doing it.

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.
Click to expand...

So if a licensing system were enacted for handguns, our rights wouldn't be violated. We just have to choose whether or not to abide by the rules that all handgun owners agreed to when they reciever their license. If we don't want to do that, we can get our license revoked. Or go to jail.
 
I find Stern about as appealing as a bathroom full of cock roaches and Janet Jackson's SuperBowl show as appropriate as a fart in an oxygen tent. That said, however, I have to side with the looney left on this one...the free market should be the arbitrator regarding which things stay and which things go. It's got nothing to do with chidren and little to do with 'morality'. People scream about the immoral nature of a breast exposed on TV in the middle of one of the most violent 'games' known to man, gimme an effing break. A player could literally get his neck broken every down but we cheer the hell out of that. You don't like whats on, change the channel, boycott the sponsors, stations or network but for God's sake, keep the effing government out of my business.
 
SARCASM NOT SERIOUS

Its all relative, who needs rules or standards,

I'd like to see hardcore porn on every channel after 11:00 at night:barf:

Why is murder illegal, if my neighbor looks at me crosseyed shouldnt I be able to just plug em between the eyes with my .44 mag:barf:

Lets just drink, smoke crack, and have wild sex orgies at work all day, after all the consitution says I have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. RIGHT???

Gay marriage COOL, I want to have three wives so I can sleep with a different one each night, I'll import one from russia and one from Sweeden, Hey maybe I'll buy an 18 year old slave Girl from Somalia for a few bucks just for variety.


Stern's show is CRAPPOLA, just turn on E! at 11:30 tonight and watch it you'll see. Howard can get a job on HBO or some other pay channel if his current employers dont want him.

Free speech does not mean speech without consequences.
Freedom does not mean that there are no standards of behavior.


Society would crumble without standards, and we would all be living in caves.

END OF RANT

JMHO YMMV.
 
So if a licensing system were enacted for handguns, our rights wouldn't be violated. We just have to choose whether or not to abide by the rules that all handgun owners agreed to when they reciever their license. If we don't want to do that, we can get our license revoked. Or go to jail.
Click to expand...

False analogy. You're comparing apples and oranges. The broadcast spectrum (public airwaves) are public property just like the continental shelf. Private businesses are licensed to exploit those resources for the benefit of all. With the continental shelf it is the extraction of oil, with the broadcast spectrum it is providing news and entertainment.

Ownership of a firearm is the expression/exercise of a natural right of man as enumerated in a limited way by the US Constitution, not the exploitation of a public resource. Requiring a license to exercise a natural right is an infringement on the "free exercise" of that right.

Assessing Stern with a fine for obscenity is not an infringement of his 1st amendment rights. He can still speak freely on any street corner. It is merely the holding of his broadcasting company to the terms of it's FCC license in the same way the Dept. of the Interior might fine Exxon-Mobile for an oil spill from an offshore drilling platform.
 
I used to listen to Howard, but that was a while ago. The last I remember of him was hearing him whining about how this one or that was stealing his stuff.

For createive talent shock jock, I like the Greaseman.
 
Looks like many of you have been fooled again. This isn't about the FCC and "legislating morality." That's just what Howard Stern wants you to believe. This is about him pissing off one of his employers. He knows he's in an untennable position and is just trying to dredge up support by misleading people. He has been able to totally reshape the discussion in his efforts to make himself look like he's being oppressed by the evil Bush administration. The reality of the matter is quite different. I can't believe so many of you are falling for it.
 
Relieving ones self is a totally natural act, but how would you like it if I did it on your front lawn?
Click to expand...
Well, I'd personally prefer it if you'd urinate on my bushes, as I'm far too lazy to water them myself.
If you can't be bothered to aim that much, then anywhere in the yard will be fine.
If you'd like to do anything more than urinate out there, then send me a private message and we can discuss which fields I need fertilizer in more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Once in a while
Replies
0
Views
347
Bruce H
B
P
  • Locked
Al-Queda and John Kerry
Replies
10
Views
736
pax
P
T
  • Locked
Bush threatens veto of bill scaling back the PATRIOT Act
Replies
19
Views
682
Tag
Tag
C
  • Locked
GWB Tricked into Signing Gun Ban (Onion)
Replies
1
Views
533
schizrade
S
S
  • Locked
Gun owners to dump Bush?
Replies
24
Views
867
Selfdfenz
S
Back
Top