Stern Threatens To Quit If Bush Signs Indecency Bill

[TaurusCIA]

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.

It has defined how you can assemble...having been specifically addressed it does not get trumped by the 9th. If you don't believe it then go try it

 

[MicroBalrog]

If you don't believe it then go try it

Under this argument, you don't have the right to have military small arms.

Don't believe me? Go get one!

 

[TaurusCIA]

I agree. I don't have the right at this time according to current law.

Therefore I am using my clearly defined right "to petition the government for a redress of grievances" by vote and voice to correct the current situation.

Who decides what is a crime, what is speedy, who is impartial, what is excessive or what is cruel and unusual, etc.?

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.

Amendment V
..or otherwise infamous [crime]...
Amendment VI
...the accused shall enjoy the right to a [speedy] and public trial, by an [impartial] jury...
Amendment VIII
[Excessive] bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor [cruel and unusual] punishments inflicted.

 

[c_yeager]

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.

Actually this is a false analogy.

It MAY be applicable to the suberbowl nonesense since it blindsided a lot of people.

BUT, it does not apply to the howard stern show etc. Why? Because the howard stern show does turn ITSELF on to your childrens radio. If your kids are listening to the show then it is THEY that are doing so.

A more applicable analogy using your same theme would be this:

There is a guy in your neighborhood who likes to hand around his house naked. Maybe he's just weird like that. And YOUR CHILDREN like to go over to HIS HOUSE and hang out in his living room. He doesnt MAKE them come over, and he doesnt ASK them to come over. They just want to hangout with him because they think his funny/interesting/ what have you. Should HE be held responsible for your kids going over to his house? Or is that YOUR problem?

 

[geegee]

Howard Stern has become what he fears most: ordinary. He surrounds himself by a squad of dim bulb sycophants that haven't had an original thought in ten years. His high school freshman comedy act got old a long time ago, just as most plays, movies, and/or acts based purely upon shock value will do. He constantly runs his mouth about his First Amendment Rights, yet fails to recognize that his employer has some rights too, and he now must blame his problems on something or somebody other than himself. In his case it's Bush's Religious Right, blah, blah, blah. "Hey everybody, I'm a celebrity. I'm talented. To disagree with me is censorship."

I haven't heard it yet, but if more stations decide to drop him (as is their right), I'm sure we'll hear that favorite whine of liberal entertainers everywhere, when faced with the consequences of their behavior: I'm a victim of McCarthyism.

He has yet to realize he's not being censored, he's suffering from a market based decision. His employer (not the government) has decided to remove him in certain markets. If your employer tells you to behave or you'll limit the growth of your career, and you choose not to, then don't complain about the consequences. The government has not told him he's being taken off the air, despite his constant harangues to the contrary. geegee

 

[DTLoken]

The FCC has no business doing anything than licensing frequencies, in the terms of broadcast radio and TV.

It's not the government's job to tell me what is decent and indecent.

It's up for the viewer, and parent of a child to decide what is and isn't.

 

[TaurusCIA]

Actually this is a false analogy.

Well, not quite.

The issue is, whether you think its right or wrong, that the govt has control of the airwaves, which I believe are considered PUBLIC. I don't believe that holds true for cable TV. Since the airwaves are public then he has to abide by the rules if he wants to play and pay the price when he breaks the rules.

"Such speech on matters of national importance, however, is a far cry from a sexual display. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has upheld the FCC's basic framework for regulating obscene and indecent programming. A federal regulation imposes a blanket ban on "obscene" material, and restricts broadcasts that are "indecent" (but that fall short of being obscene) to between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., when, it is assumed, few young children will be in the audience." Link...

 

[c_yeager]

The issue is, whether you think its right or wrong, that the govt has control of the airwaves, which I believe are considered PUBLIC.

Actually they are NOT considered public. They are considered the PROPERTY of the government. These are two VERY different things. If they were PUBLIC people would not have to pay to use them right? Well part of these FCC reforms includes the "SALE" of frequencies by the government. Which in effect makes the entire spectrum of broadcastable frequencies the PROPERTY of the feds. That is not 'public'.

 

[gunsmith]

Stern sure is getting lots of free

publicity

 

[gunsmith]

lets go back

to talking about David crosby gettibg busted with weed,it's alot more inneresting

 

[TaurusCIA]

c_yeager,

Thanks for the clarification. But it's like everything else we consider to be "public" isn't it? You have to pay to maintain roads, parks and other govt owned or controlled property. You have to pay for a driver's license and obey the rules or you are fined and/or your license revoked. In this case they can decide not to pay and not to use the govt owned property.

Without boundaries we would have chaos and anarchy. Someone has to keep my rights from treading on your rights or vice versa. The big problem comes deciding/electing those who will enforce the rules.

Thanks again for the clarification.

 

[greyhound]

How come no one was interested in the original point about George Bush signing the proposed bill?

This whole flap is all his fault, you know.

(and yes, I am aware that my sarcasm aside, Stern has inferred exactly that).

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Publius:

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.

Thanks for the Boortz link, he is always good reading. Unfortunately he doesn't propose anything better than presumed public ownership of the broadcast spectrum.

As far as oil goes, the at times the Fed.Gov does dictate how oil extracted on public lands is sold. If I recall correctly Alaskan oil was not permitted to be sold outside the US for many years unttil a deal was cut allowing it to be sold to the Japanese.

 

[Baba Louie]

Quite a topic for a firearms and rights related board, no?

Stern... an entertaining, very intelligent man who did/does his best to stretch the envelope and quite often gets in trouble for it. No news there.

Uncle Sam (thats you and I as well as our friends in DC) decides to get into the business of regulating airwaves, etc way back in 1912 (Radio Act of) to allow the Secretary of Commerce to license these newfangled Radio Stations (Interstate Commerce being a Constitutional thing donchaknow and thus... its cool), later amended by the Radio Act of 1927 which now sets up the Federal Radio Commission which sets bandwidth, controls station power and issues licenses.

Comes the newfangled telephone thingamabob... whooboy

Congress writes the 1934 Communication Act (anything else get written that year you can think about by the Dems in office?) which incorporates a lot of the 1912/1927 stuff and sets up the Federal Communication Commission, basically to include telephone communication control standards, fees, etc. but adds a clause that goes something like this...

SEC. 326. [47 U.S.C. 326] CENSORSHIP; INDECENT LANGUAGE.

Nothing in this Act shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communication.
(Since its the smallest clause in the whole thing... it musta been thrown in by a Republican at the time) (J/K)

Which hasn't been deleted or amended to date... oh the 7 word thing... ignoring the 55 words in the above clause... yeah you can't use those words... it shocks Art's grandmaw and thats a bad thing, but its not in any legislation anywhere... that'd be congressional censorship... notgonnahappen that way. Let the bureaucrats write that reg... yeah, thats the ticket... kinda like the famous "not a sporting arm" thing.

BUT

Should you or I decide to make a complaint about anything that falls under the control of the FCC "In Writing", say, a long haired, loudmouthed NY based DJ who talks about sex and scatalogical based humor... the FCC will investigate. They have to. It says so in the '34 Act. They assign three commissioners to sit in judgement and the offending party/station/licensee pays a fine.

Standards? Whose standards? What standards? The 7 words standards? New standards? 1934 standards? Lenny Bruce standards? Cable TV standards? Bill O'Reilly standards? Oral Robert's standards?

Wait. I know. Up the ante. Half a million dollar fines ought to do it. (What's that line in the Constitution's BOR's about cruel and unusual punishment... something like... Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.)

Bother!

From regulating Radio Interstate Commerce to half a million dollar fines in 92 years for talking trash...

Thats progress.

Me? When Howie gets too sophomoric, I change stations to NPR. One extreme deserves the other. Equals things out in my fevered brain. Others listen and write letters complaining. Over and over.

Should Howie decide to quit... thats his decision. My guess is that he'll find some way to... stretch the envelope... and that'll really brown somebody off, so they'll write more letters of complaint... yawn

I'd gladly give up rights for a little ear safety censorship... yeah right

Link to the 1934 Communication Act
http://www.hemplinglaw.com/cases/ca1934.htm

For an uplifting evening... read the 96 Telecommunication Act which supersedes the old 34 and includes Cable and Internet control... Oi Vey

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

cordex:

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 don't see how any other system would work. Even setting up a quasi-private corporation like the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) would amount to the same thing.

Government management of a resource doesn't constitute a monopoly over it. The Fed.Gov isn't exploiting the resource itself. The US doesn't have a system such as that which existed in the USSR for many years where only the Government was allowed to broadcast.

 

[tiberius]

I don't see how any other system would work. Even setting up a quasi-private corporation like the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) would amount to the same thing.

No kidding. Without assignment of frequencies there would be too much chaos and interference from competing systems. Nothing would work.

 

[Feanaro]

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.

Publicly broadcast speech still sounds like speech to me. Isn't free speech supposed to be a "right"? The Constitution did not, last I checked, say "shall not be infringed, save where the public can profit off of it and levy fines". There are some words or some subjects the FCC will punish you for airing. That sounds to me like an infringement. I cannot see how it is okay to censor something over the radio but not in our normal lives.

 

[Jay Kominek]

No kidding. Without assignment of frequencies there would be too much chaos and interference from competing systems. Nothing would work.

Why? It wouldn't be to the advantage of the telecommunications industry, and nobody would buy their products if they didn't engage in some sort of self regulation. (edit: In fact, standardization bodies like the IEEE already regulate what frequencies should be used for what sort of devices.)
It is silly to take on faith the fact that the electromagnetic spectrum would decay into total chaos if the FCC didn't exist.
Most people can't afford to own and operate a high power transmitter, so they can't muck with anything more than a mile or two away from themselves.
AND: The FCC isn't some magical entity which can immediately smack down any one who violates its rules, instantly. I can go set up a pirate radio station tomorrow, and if I'm quick and clever about it, probably be ok. In fact, I probably wouldn't even cause much real trouble in the process. Why? It is a waste of my time to broadcast where an established radio station is broadcasting. People tuning in want to hear them, not me. I'm much better off taking an unoccupied portion of the spectrum, and thus, not interfering with any one.

(Maybe, in fact, it wouldn't work to deregulate radio. But I'm tired of this total, blind faith that the FCC is absolutely necessary.)

 

[MicroBalrog]

Link to the 1934 Communication Act

It seems 1934 was a bad year.

 

[tiberius]

jkominek,

Perhaps, but that would still be a regulating body of some sort. There are lots of low power stuff (bluetooth, home RF, 802.11b, etc.) that could easily be interferred with. There are also devices that are not intended for communication, but still emit in the RF spectrum (for a classic example - microwave ovens). Makers of these devices may have no interest in or knowlege of the voluntary communications community standards and neglect to consider the ramifications of their product. The courts would then be the only solution.

I don't like regulation either, but the trick is to regulate enough to encourage innovation, not stifle it.

 

[cordex]

I don't see how any other system would work. Even setting up a quasi-private corporation like the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) would amount to the same thing.

Private oversight organizations I can live with, because when they get overly restrictive they can be ignored without risking prison and/or death.

Government management of a resource doesn't constitute a monopoly over it. The Fed.Gov isn't exploiting the resource itself.

Main Entry: mo·nop·o·ly
Pronunciation: m&-'nä-p(&-)lE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -lies
Etymology: Latin monopolium, from Greek monopOlion, from mon- + pOlein to sell
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly

Tell me again how the government doesn't have a monopoly?

You know, it's kind of funny that you brought up the IANA earlier. Are you at all familiar with the Network Solutions monopoly that the gov't broke up? Not too dissimilar from the FCC monopoly, except Network Solutions didn't try to censor the internet.

The US doesn't have a system such as that which existed in the USSR for many years where only the Government was allowed to broadcast.

Never claimed we did.
The lack of a Stalinist state, however, does not prove that an unjust monopoly doesn't exist.

And once again, you've ignored my question.

Just so we can get this cleared up, I'll restate it.
You made the assertion that:

The broadcast spectrum (public airwaves) are public property just like the continental shelf.

I asked "According to?"

You've twice responded singing the praises of our current system without even touching on my question.

If I discovered a means to exploit a new broadcast technology that utilized previously unused frequencies that didn't interfere with any other frequency or equipment, should I be allowed to use these frequencies for my own personal gain in whatever manner that I wish? Or should my work be siezed by the government and redistributed as they see fit to other broadcasters using a licensing system wherein the broadcasters would pay the government for my work?

What makes the public airwaves public? C'mon, Coolhand, we both know the answer to this.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Looks like a reason to vote for Bush to me. I can't stand Howard Stern.

However, you cannot legislate morality by restricting free speech. If no one wanted to hear Stern, no one would buy advertising on his shows and he'd fade away. If you wish to effect changes in the show's format, write to the advertisers. All this current uproar is doing is providing lots of free advertisement for Stern and attracting people that have never heard him to listen and see what the fuss is all about.

 

[Sean Smith]

He has yet to realize he's not being censored, he's suffering from a market based decision.

No he isn't. He's suffering from the government threatening his employers. The market has voted, and it voted for Stern. See his ratings in most markets for details. Ratings = profit in broadcast media.

If most of the people listening to the radio in a given market at a given time are listening to Stern, the whole argument that he violates community standards of decency becomes a joke almost by definition.

The government has not told him he's being taken off the air, despite his constant harangues to the contrary.

The government is producing the same effect by threatening his employers with exhorbitant fines based on an incredibly vague definition of what is legal or illegal to broadcast. Is that censorship or racketeering?

Looks like a reason to vote for Bush to me. I can't stand Howard Stern.

However, you cannot legislate morality by restricting free speech.

Funny how people's principles and dedication to Constitutional government go by the wayside, when sticking to those principles would help somebody they personally dislike.

 

[brookstexas]

Really pathetic!

It's pathetic all the people who say " I don't like him so I don't care".
I don't listen to him and I CARE!
This is like hunters saying I don't use pistols/AK47s etc so why should I care when they are taken away?
Un-AMERICAN in the least to not support the free speech you don't like also...
-BT

 

[dustind]

So is the .gov going after Howard? Are his employers go after him on their own, for their own reasons? Or is the .gov forcing his employers to go after him?

The FCC should not have any power to go after anyone, unless they are going out of their bandwidth range, or committing some similar offense.