According to?
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.I am so tired of Stern whining and bashing Bush that I can't even stand his show for more than a minute now.
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.
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?
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 [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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.More significantly, the FCC's rules are so vaguely and broadly defined that they can declare anything indecent.
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.
You (generic "you") may have no objection to Stern, et al, but you're in a definite minority--and you'll lose.
(and I never listened/watched his show.