Howard Stern and the FCC

[MTK]

Your opinion of the whole thing?

Seems like a total witch hunt if you ask me.

[skinsfanthru&thru]

I'm kinda suprised it took this long for them to really crack down on him. I used to think some of his stuff was somewhat funny, but he's highly overrated now. I sometimes watch his show on E! but that's only if someone like Carmen Electra, Pam Anderson, or a few other hot female celebs r gonna be on. I do think they r going way overboard since the Janet JAckson thing especially since you didn't even see her damn nipple. You see things twice as bad on MTV and BET and I remember watching or reading National Geographic stuff as a younger kid just to see the tribal women wearing no clothes. I think we may even start seeing some rulings start to really press the issue of freedom of speech.

[NY_Skinsfan]

I don't think that Stern will ever totally leave the airwaves...In a few more months something else will happen that will be the focus of the government. Anyway, I don't know what I would do if I couldn't listen to Stern in the morning.

My opininion, if you don't like what Stern is saying or anyone else for that matter, turn the dial....that's what the dials are for anyway.

[skinsfanthru&thru]

I pretty much hate listening to any radio talk show and would much rather listen to music. I did like the movie Private Parts though. that was pretty funny.

[Skins fan 44]

I really dont think Sterns cares and think he is hoping he gets banned. I was listening to him about 4 years ago and he said that he did not think he was going to do his show much longer.

[MTK]

If he doesn't care he sure isn't showing it.

Before this happened his website was totally lame, now it's been totally revamped. Plus they talk about the whole thing all the time now. Almost to the point where I get bored and throw in a CD when they get off on a rant.

http://www.howardstern.com

[SKINSnCANES]

I never usually listen to him in the morning anyways. When im in Maryland id rather listen to Elliot in the Morning, or in Miami the local rock stations duo. The Mike and Mike show I think is better as well. Howard can be funny sometimes but its just Jerry Springer radio.

[Daseal]

I don't really like Howard Stern or Don and Mike that much. Not really my type of humor, I prefer Elliot in the Morning (which is even trashier!!) However, I totally respect their first amendment rights and feel that the FCC is violating that.

Basicly a small minority of hardcore religious "Crusaders" are doing this. With the backing of the white house with such abominations as Rumsfeld who doesn't think abortion should be legal for rape victims. This guy is so warped and jaded it isn't funny, how he got into a position of power is besides me. Basicly the religious groups freak out about 3/4th of a second worth of breast, along with offensive launguage they don't want there kids hearing. Here's a novel idea, fucking be a parent! If you don't want your kids listening here is a simple list of steps to follow:
1) Send them to god damn school, they shouldn't be home from 7-10 anyways. Most schools make it so kids have to be out of the house by 7 (Does howard start earlier? Maybe.)
2) Keep an eye on your children. I don't want to have to listen to the disney channel on every station because there's a chance a parent can't keep their sheltered child away from it.
3) Just let your kid listen to it. I've seen kids sheltered like this before, when they hit puberty they go crazy. Especially when they hit college age and don't have anyone there. Don't try to hide the world from your children and they won't become cast out from society or the other extreme, whores.
4) They're going to hear worse on the school yard.

Basicly, this is all political. I guarantee that there is no way Howard goes off before November. There have been several reports of the white house meeting with the FCC and saying not to touch him till November, because it simply would lose the white house votes. Not to mention the current FCC is a puppet for our current administration. A guy named Michael Powell runs the FCC... Yeah... Powell... Colin's son. That explains some things.

Between that awful 9/11 press conference and this FCC trash I think Bush might be in some trouble. Thank god.

[JoeRedskin]

Well I just reread your first post Daseal - <sigh> Where to start??

Originally Posted by Daseal

I totally respect their first amendment rights and feel that the FCC is violating that.

Well, First - under the 1st Amendment, the nature of Stern's speech is subject to regulation. As part of its guarantee of free speech, the 1st Amendment simply does not guarantee that all forms of speech shall be unregulated. Regardless of his attempts to couch it otherwise, Stern's radio show is plainly "commercial speech" as that term is legally defined. There is a longggggg line of Supreme Court cases discussing what types of speech may be regulated and, in doing so, what is permissible regulation for the various types of speech (commercial speech, political speech, etc). Of the various types, "commercial speech" is the one least given to constitutional protections.

Apparently, Stern's actions are being deemed to be in violation of certain regulations previously adopted by the FCC and approved by Congress (Civics 101: administrative agencies propose regulations based on their authorizing statutes, these regulations must then be approved by Congress). These are not regulations which sprang up over night (enforcement of them may differ from administration to administration) and Stern knew of their existence prior to entering the radio business. As such, Stern knew or should have known he was acting in a manner which, at the very least, was touch and go with conduct prohibited by regulation and which Stern should have reasonably guessed could cause problems for him if an administration with less tolerance towards his form of entertainment came to power.

Stern is free to go find a nice public place, get the appropriate permits, and put his show on for anyone to come see it. As long as he conforms to with the appropriate regulatory controls, he will not be arrested and jailed soley on the content of his speech. Radio, however, for legitimate public interests is a regulated medium and speech using that medium is subject regulatory control by the FCC.

Originally Posted by Daseal

Here's a novel idea, fucking be a parent!

Daseal, fine. But, in being a responsible parent, can we ask for some support from the society in which we live and from our fellow citizens within that society? Is it to much to ask that we, as a society, be aware that parents, even the most responsible ones, cannot protect, teach or otherwise be there at all times for our children? And, in order to assist responsible parents and further the legitimate public goal of children's welfare, shouldn't society consider reasonably regulating the content of information which will be placed into the public stream? (I emphasize "reasonably" and recognize that a wide breadth of opinion will exist as to what this means.)

Your various suggestions essentially assume that unsupervised children will make the right choices if properly instructed and taught. At some point, that should be the case. Further, I would generally agree that it is reasonable to expect teens and "tweens" to have such discernment. However, is it too much for parents to ask of their fellow citizens that they assist in limiting the free availability of this junk to children prior to the time that a child could reasonably be expected to have such discernment, regardless of the responsible nature of the parent? Why should I have to explain erectile disfuncton to a seven year old? Because information is so readily available to all children, should responsible parents attempt to educate their third grade child about sexually transmitted diseases in attempt to preempt erroneous and possibly harmful misinformation learned in "the schoolyard"? Is this really the goal we wish to set as a society??

I am not a religious fanatic, but I do think the level of public discourse in this country has reached a point where legitimate societal concern exists (well, actually, I think we reached it a while back). Through no fault of their parents, children are being confronted with information that is totally inappropriate for their age and for which they are unequipped to deal with either emotionally or intellectually. Ignoring this societal problem or blaming it on religious fanatics, forces responsible parents to address adult issues with children sooner rather than later and, in some small way, robs these children of their right to BE children. (But, hey, I wouldn't want that to interfere with your right to create or consume trash).

There is a very selfish undertone to your criticism Daseal - "Why should I have to limit my unrestricted access to information which I like but which may be damaging to your kids? It's your responsibility as a parent, not mine, to restrict their access and teach them what to do when confronted by this stuff!"

To which I respond
"Dammit, we live and exist in this society together. I accept and will take primary responsibility for raising my child, BUT, as we are both members of this society, I may need you to make some reasonable sacrifices so to assist me in raising a well-adjusted member of OUR society. One of those sacrifices is to consider reasonable restrictions on the availability of material inappropriate for children which may, in turn, affect your unlimited access to the same."

Originally Posted by Daseal

Not to mention the current FCC is a puppet for our current administration. A guy named Michael Powell runs the FCC... Yeah... Powell... Colin's son. That explains some things.

OMIGOD - You mean the Federal Communications Commission - an arm of the executive branch of the federal government, an administrative body whose members are appointed by the chief executive, and whose purpose is to execute and administer the nation's laws and regulations in concert with the policies of said chief executive - is <<GASP>> doing just that!!!

(By the way, did Clinton have any "puppet" agency heads while he was president? or did he just try to personally administer each of the agencies subject to his constitutional authority?)

[MTK]

Kinda funny how shortly after Stern started speaking out against Bush he was pulled from Clear Channel, who reportedly receives a healthy amount of money from republican supporters. Hmmmm......

[skinsfanthru&thru]

I'm going out on a limb here and saying there seem to be quite a few democrats on the Warpath.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by skinsfanthru&thru

I'm going out on a limb here and saying there seem to be quite a few democrats on the Warpath.

While a life-long Republican, I have been very, very disappointed with many of the policies of the current administration. Philosophically, I lean towards Jeffersonian politics with its emphasis on devolution of government and focus on individual liberty. With that said, and for a nation with the great diversity ours has (no - not the pc diversity. Real diversity - actual differences in culture, economic interests, thought and ideology), these Jeffersonian principles should be balanced against the Hamiltonian policies of centralization under a federal system.

As my father so accurately puts it, and as it seems to me, Bush is a "greed Republican"; he worships at the foot of Milton Friedman - free market guru extrodinaire. In doing so, and despite his "compassionate conservative" claim, Bush forgets some of the traditionally essential elements of real "conservatism". As well put by traditionalist thinker Russell Kirk in 1954, "Conservatism is something more than mere solicitude for tidy incomes. Economic self-interest is ridiculously inadequate to hold an economic system together, and even less adequate to preserve order."

With that said, I agree with Matty - Bush is the lesser of two evils. Kerry is essentially an old style liberal who will attempt to reinvoke the failed economic policies of centralized economic planning and wealth redistribution. As for his foreign policy - well, that seems to depend on which way the wind is blowing.

A friend of mine put it this way "I know both the Dems and Republicans lie, I just prefer the Republican lies."

As for the main subject of this post, I am basically with you Daseal in that parental involvment is a must. As a relatively new parent, however, I have noticed that the level of graphic, violent, or other "objectionable" info floating around for general consuption is pretty high and quite prevalent in our society. While I can try to inform and help my children to discern the difference between acceptable and non-acceptable behavior, and I do not believe the rest of the world should be forced to watch the disney channel 24/7, I have come to the belief that their needs to be some safe harbors for families. For example, if you are watching something in primetime and reasonably expect it to be a family event, then you shouldn't have to explain why the lights went out when someone's tit gets exposed.

As for Stern - nope, not something I would let my kids listen to or if they do so, hopefully they would understand enought to not adopt his language, attitudes as their own.

But let me ask you this - Regardless of everyone's prior knowledge that it is unfit for children, is there a level at which something becomes so objectionable that we as society should say "No - we will not permit that to be put into the public awareness through the mass media. We find it so unacceptable as to be unable to endorse it as a society by permitting it to be presented through a regulated medium. You are free to present it in your own manner and at your own expense, but we will not permit it to be presented through a medium regulated by and responsible to the general public?"

If yes, where is the line? If no, what right is there to for the general public to regulate the public conduct or expression of an individual?

[SKINSnCANES]

lol, ya never know. All everyone has done is make fun of Bushs intelligence. I typically vote republican, but that doesnt mean George Bush hasnt said about a millions stupid things.

[Daseal]

For me, I like both sides of the ball for certain things, although cpayne will tell you quite differently. I just think that our current administration is made up of animals who try to attempt to violate our civil rights in order to leave their mark on history. I love how the oil companies have done virtually the same thing Enron did with lying about their production and the amount of oil they have in their reserves yet no action has been taken. The only thing that could make this administration worse is if they added Mel Gibson. I hate that son of a bitch.

Bush is the type of guy I'd love to party with, but wouldn't let him balance my check book, no less our country. Personally I hope Kerry chooses McCain as his running mate, although I think it's a bit far fetched because I think that would force McCain to switch over to democrat, which won't happen. I'm a bit ignorant as to how that works. If I were President (haha) I would try to have many republicans on my staff and democrats. That way I would get the view from both sides of the ball and could make a balanced decesion.

[SKINSnCANES]

If only it worked that way. Im sure one day there will be a new party that comes into office that tries to split the difference and tried to make better decisions instead of a decision based on the view of the party.