Stern Threatens To Quit If Bush Signs Indecency Bill

[Hkmp5sd]

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.

Please note that the first comment was facetious and if one reads the complete post, it was stated that it was not the government's responsibility to make decisions over the content of Howard Stern's radio show. It made it clear that if the public did not like what Stern says over the airwaves, the listeners should use the show's advertisers and radio stations to make whatever changes they deem appropriate.

 

[dustind]

Hkmp5sd: I see. When I read your post I thought you were serious with your first comment, which did not seem like you.

 

[c_yeager]

Whats particularly amusing is that if anyone had actually listened to the show they would know that Howard Stern is FAVOR of the war in Iraq and untill all this FCC stuff started he was moderatly pro BUSH as well. He certainly wasnt ALL ABOUT supporting Bush. But, untill recently he had more good things to say about him than bad.

 

[Erik]

The government has a right to enforce standards on the airways. More than that, they have a duty to do so.

Stern should take his program to premium outlets where he belongs.

 

[Sean Smith]

The government has a right to enforce standards on the airways. More than that, they have a duty to do so.

Quick: WHAT law did Stern violate? HOW did he violate it? If you can't articulate that in some meaningful manner, you can't expect him to follow it.

HINT: Nobody knows. NOBODY. It is whatever the particular flunkie in the FCC feels like at the time. How can you support that kind of system? Does Howard Stern talking about boobies suddenly make any usurpation OK if it is directed at him?

Furthermore, the government HAS NO RIGHTS. Only the people have rights. Government has powers granted by the people, and restrictions on those powers. But no rights.

Stern should take his program to premium outlets where he belongs.

Says who? Says you, tough guy? The millions of people that make him #1 in who knows how many markets disagree. That's the "community standards" right there: the people voting with their radio dials. What gives some outside twink the power to tell the people in a community what to listen to? I guess the jackboot is cool beans as long as it doesn't step on YOU.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Cordex:

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?

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:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

I thought I answered your question three times now. Let me make my answer more explicit: The broadcast spectrum is public property by assumption. The Federal Government has made this assumption on the behalf of the people of the United States who have elected it, and by the doctrine of re-enactment by virtue of the people having re-elected it.

I haven't sung the praises of the current system. I only pointed out some advantages of it as opposed to no system of regulation.

The Webster's definition of monoploly you've pasted has little validity in a discussion of economic theory. I doubt many economists would consider it to have any real meaning in an economic sense. The Government has a monopoly absent economic exploitation and controlling very few broadcast outlets? No it doesn't. Management of a public resource by government licensing does not constitute a monoploy over that resource. Private companies have recourse to the courts if they are unfairly denied a broadcast license by arbitrary and capricious Government actions. Every private individual and company has an equal chance to secure a broadcast license if they are willing to meet certain minimal standards instituted by the Government on the behalf of and with the full consent of the American people in the management of the people's resource.

And I note that you have failed to offer any better system than the typical anti-government bent of the Libertarians that dictates every broadcast outlet would have a transmitter system so powerfull as to require it's own nuclear power station with the requisite jamming, anti-jamming technology to take care of competitors. Yep, that'll work.

 

[DesertRat]

Hey, Howard - Don't let the door hit your backside on your way out.




Howard Stern is not a great entertainer, nor a person of anything noteworthy. He's just another person who "lucked out" in the strange world that is entertainment.

Personally, I don' t hate him; however, I also do not believe he has ever had anything of significant value to contribute to society. Just my $0.02.

DR

 

[cordex]

I thought I answered your question three times now. Let me make my answer more explicit: The broadcast spectrum is public property by assumption. The Federal Government has made this assumption on the behalf of the people of the United States who have elected it, and by the doctrine of re-enactment by virtue of the people having re-elected it.

Ah, finally. The Government decided that the airwaves were public - so they appropriated them via emminent domain (i.e. what they want, they take) and have held them ever since. Thus, "according to the government, the government should control the airwaves".

The concept that "the people" have granted tacit approval of these actions does nothing to argue the morality of the issue. Consider other things "the people" have granted tacit approval of, or things done "on behalf of the people".

Nationalization isn't the answer.

The Government has a monopoly absent economic exploitation and controlling very few broadcast outlets? No it doesn't. Management of a public resource by government licensing does not constitute a monoploy over that resource.

"Public resource" according to those who wish to control it. Lots of other fun things we could nationalize too.
Network Solutions managing DNS (relatively fairly, reliably and without censorship) is monopoly while government management of airwaves plus censorship of them (excused by claims of managment) isn't?

Private companies have recourse to the courts if they are unfairly denied a broadcast license by arbitrary and capricious Government actions. Every private individual and company has an equal chance to secure a broadcast license if they are willing to meet certain minimal standards instituted by the Government on the behalf of and with the full consent of the American people in the management of the people's resource.

Actually, if you'll examine the case in question, this isn't quite how things are. See Mike's post.
The "minimal standards" are arbitrary and when challenged the government's response is to remove permits which is something companies cannot afford so they knuckle under. Not quite the fair and just picture you paint.

 

[Unisaw]

Howard -- Go ahead, make my day.

 

[Baba Louie]

Ah, finally. The Government decided that the airwaves were public - so they appropriated them via emminent domain (i.e. what they want, they take) and have held them ever since.

If there's any "Interstate Commerce" or even an inkling of trans-state commercial activity... guess who, by Constitutional edict, gets to and is supposed to "REGULATE" that media?

Standards and Taxes brought to us by our kind Uncle.

Standards will always be as explicit in hardware matters or at least as current as the technology allows at time of institution of said standards. Control of content standards... grey area, which will ebb and rise with societal mores and/or outcrys of "Foul" if an election is coming up and it behooves some politico's voting constituients without unduly alarming capital sponsors of both the media in question and their related campaign contributions or the "little people" so affected by said, typically vague fluctuating standards.

Taxes, License Fees, permits, etc., whatever the market will bear.

So in a way, Howard Stern's fight is our fight, based on the vaguely worded standards, and since he knows that no court in the nation will back him (and thus us, the little people), his only course of action is to (like Ronald Reagan) go over the heads of the elected few and champion his cause to the little people and his sponsors, based on 1st amendment arguments... specious at best... as Interstate Commerce control and regulation will over-ride his right to talk about whatever, everytime.

But I could be wrong.

 

[one-shot-one]

$0.02

first let me say i did not read all five pages of this thread so if i'm repeating someone forgive me.
now avoiding the christian right vs. liberterian vs. economic conservitive vs. etc.
i seem to remember serveral "stars" stating a similar threat about leaving the country if bush is elected last i checked none have renounced their citizenship.!?!
if he quits and leaves public life good ridence.

 

[XLMiguel]

Probably not a real orignal thought, but when Howard buys his own radio station and gets his own license, he can say whatever he wants and take his chances with the FCC et al.

Until then, he just someone's employee and he's got to live by their rules and with their wishes (as stupid or noble as they may be-) or ****.

 

[dtt]

Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it. I voted for Bush, and Alec Baldwin didn't make good on his promise to leave the country.

 

[Erik]

Stern has bragged for years about the fines he has incurred. Somewhere along the lines, I imagine he aquired an inkling as to why he was being fined. Hell, I'd wager he's a veritable expert on the subject.

I see today that Stern has indicated he may make the move to premium radio. That is where he belongs. I wish him luck.

---

Nobody is being censored.