Howard stern, popular radio "shock jock", has been put off the air in six cities. The government organization FCC has been pressuring ClearChannel (the company that employs Howard) to do something about him. The FCC is moving on grounds of "indecency". The worst part is...it's entirely within the bounds of the law.

The government has the right to regulate radio because the medium it is transmitted through (the air) is owned by everyone and therefore the governemnt has the right to control free speech. Cable and Satelite tv have no such restrictions.

So what is this a prime example of? Right wing political maneuvering and puritanical stick-up-the-assdom.

The thing was pushed over the edge by the Superbowl halftime show that showed Janet Jackson's boob. So now Howard has to suffer.

It is quite obvious that Howard helped get the governor of New York elected. He is very anti-bush, and one theory is that some White House people pushed harder for the ban now to not ruin Bush. Partisan politics run amok.

Let us also look at "indecency". Stern talked alot about the Paris Hilton sex video and has lots of nudity on his show. Need I remind you that this is radio. However these assholes in congress don't get the idea of turning off the damned radio, so they prefer regulation.

This injustice on free speech is absurd and thoroughly unamerican. It is politically motivated and downright atrocious.

Keep this in mind next time you say America has free speech. Think again.

If you violate the laws then you are shut down, simply said. Free Speech is abundant, you have no idea.

I find that amazingly disgusting. The government has been able to maneuver around so much...The Constitution seems to be this vague old yellow paper thingy that we occasionally glance at, happily overrule, and say it's for the good of the country. I remember fourth grade even..."free speech means you can say what you want." Yeah, you can say what you want, but you'll be punished for it.

Freedom of Speech never was meant to be when anyone in this country is allowed to say anything they want. This is a horrible misconception. The reason it was created was so that you/the press may openly criticise the policies set forth by the ruling body, as you have so eloquently done so -- now and in the past, I'm sure,... the authorities however, DO have the constitutional right to regulate what goes on in open/public mediums.

In other words, freedom of speech guarantees that you will be NOT arrested and tortured for having said "Bush Sucks!" America is indeed still free. Altough many a travesty have been committed to our individual rights, I must admit. But, on this ONE point you're not completely accurate on your details, and accusations of the FCC, yes proof of it is that you are still at home enjoying your dinner and not in a jail cell for having expressed your opinion on the government.

So, your point is taken. We understand, but do not render YOUR interpretation of the constitution without fully exploring the original intent. This would be considered propaganda and not a debate.

Injustice? Why? Those cities exercised their right to TURN HIM off.

Something that Stern has done regularly, and it can be easily said partisan politicking is behind it all. ClearChannel executives themselves said his show this week was no worse than in previous weeks, coincidence? I think not.I said in my OP that it is within the bounds of the law. It goes against the spirit of free speech, and that is the shame.No, ClearChannel did after threats from the FCC.This is not a constitutional interpretation. I acknowledge how the government is within legal rights to do what it did. What I am attacking is the pathetic justification, that because "it travels through the publicly owned air" it can be regulated, but satelite tv and cable tv, newspapers are immune to such regulations? Where is the equality?

If you feel violated take it to the court. There are laws about indecency that were broken so six(only six, don't get to bent out of shape) cities turned him off. What we see here is not violation of free speech but the regulations of the FCC being enforced.

Sex is all around airwave tv and radio, the fact that Howard alone has been targteed is hypocrisy. The regulations are un-American. That is my qualm.

He hasn't been targeted alone, actually. There was another shock jock banned this week...I believe he's referred to as "The Love Sponge". Partison agenda? Radio regulations run wild? *shrugs* I'm just saying Stern wasn't the only one.

Let's not forget about airwave television, supposedly the FCC should be cracking down there too. Thank you for the input about the other guy, however it is still a great distance from sonsistency.

And since you post has been un-edited..The laws are against the spirit of freedom, and they are simply illogical. And yeah, when our freedoms get curtailed we kick and scream, we're horrible Americans.

I beg to differ. However I would like to submit that Howard on the other hand has been pushing the envelope for years now, and I do agree with you that the timing is a little suspicious, however, I would not classify it as hipocrasy neccesarily, if anything, Howard was easiest to catch and quite a big fish to be made a example of.

------

The points you make would have to be consistant as well, you cannot simply wag your finger in the air and make your claim based on one incident alone, as high profile as it were.

America is free as long as there are those that are able to freely express legitimate concerns/criticism over the governing executive. But to suggest that this is a ploy against all of our freedoms is irresponsible. Don't become a reactionary and simply follow your feelings. Think about the whole BIGGER picture first. You will find it's a drop in the bucket. I find it in no particular way unjust. Then again if a little guy in Atlanta were taken off-air for the same reasons in his small market , would you care as much? Honestly now.

Yeah, it does suck that Howard wa censored. I wasn't a big fan, but it's the principal of the matter. The First Amendment has been trampled on way too much over the years and it saddens me that it happens yet again. The same thing happened to another guy Bubba the Love Sponge except it was done by the ever PC media conglomerate Clear Channel Broadcasting.

Of course, Guaraldi stands by the Man in all of its decisions...

Now now, we all have the right to believe what we want. The "Man" isn't all bad. Nothing is. Don't insult Guaraldi for his politics, don't sink to that level.

It seems our freedom of speech is always being infringed in some way or another, by the goverment, in a way that is not as subtle as some might believe. Maybe instead of censoring the powers that be should think a little about the freedom to not turn on your goddam radio and listen

Freedom of speech is a great idea, but in practice it can be flawed...If everyone went around saying what they wanted, when they wanted - millions of people would end up being very pissed at each other, and the lashback would be harder than without a governing body. Ok, cracking down on someone's opinion is a bad thing, but if it's intentionally offensive, I don't have (as much of) a problem with censorship. I guess it's like communism - great on paper...but in reality....

So like racial abuse should be stopped? I guess its the nature of which the speech is communicated, if you're like shouting at someone accross the street about their race its different than broadcasting those same racial views over the radio to a general audience.

no, racial abuse should be encouraged

but yeah, I think that hatred without (ample) justification should be banned from the airwaves....in theory, not including fictional television shows or "exposees"

<tangent..GO>
No what pisses me off.. is that a woman shows her breast on TV and all hell breaks loose. But yet, there are at least 4 different commercials on every day for male enhancement drugs that are full of bad penis references and phallic humor. Howard stern has been degrading women for years and it was not a problem... but Janet Jackson throws her boob on stage and suddenly America has to act now to prevent this type of immoral behavior from corrupting America’s youth (like four years of Bush didn’t do enough). First of all the breast that is corrupting America’s youth is the same type that your mother used to feed you as a child. The human body is not something to be ashamed of. Half of me wonders if part of the problem still revolves around male establishments need to control and objectify women.
Furthermore, why do networks have no problems running commercials with bad penis humor and phallic innuendo?? Ill tell you why, because pharmaceutical companies spend billions of dollars each you in advertising and lobbying the FCC and federal government. I think the issues raised here are much broader than just censorship.

<tangent..STOP>

[spam]

Dammit, Max. Stop being right.
[/spam]

Cheers.I fail to see how government has that power. It has the duty to protect us from violence, not "potential causes of violence". It has no say.

So...unjustified things should be banned from the airwaves? People have the right to express their opinion, and some opinions are not necessarily justified by anything. If someone in the media/airwaves says something cruel and completely not backed up, why should we run to stop them? They can say that if they want to. The same person could express the same idea, but not in the media/airwaves, and no one would be there to stop them or censor them. So why should the media and airwaves be different? Why is there such a strong need to edit out things we don't like, especially if they're expressed to more people?

This is probably already well known, but the KKK is still around. They still meet, but they do it peaceably, as long as they don't act on their racist behavior they are allowed to do what they want and they haven't been attacked at all, and I would think they would call that more offensive than Stern.

This whole indecency thing is taken a bit far, if you don't want to watch/listen, then turn it off, you have the freedom to do that right? Or does the government think we are all too stupid, fat, and lazy to push a damn button? Don't like it? Turn it off. That would be the simple solution, but they throw it around like we can't do that and we are being forced to watch it.

I'm so good at repeating ideas, but thats what I think on it.

Yeah, the thing about Janet Jackson was kind of silly. I mean, Sex and the City has how much more nudity in it? And they show that on tv, and I don't really see a huge outrage over that.

They show it on HBO, which is a premium channel. It also has a rating at the beginning...probably TV MA....I don't know, it's been years since I watched HBO. The Janet thing was on network TV, and its rating was probably, at the MOST, TV 14. That's a really high estimate on my part, though, I think.

That being said, I don't see the big deal about nudity at all. Like Ravein said, the human body isn't something to be ashamed of. I also don't see why people would ban Howard Stern's show. Like other's have said...if they don't want to listen, then they shouldn't...but preventing everyone in those areas from listening? That's a bit much.

Just to play devil's advocate...

Since American laws are based on American ethics, and the Janet boob incident was "unethical", and further recognizing how the government has an obligation to protect the ethics of the nation, they had every right to do what they did.

That's their actual arguement.

Pretty funny huh?

*starts giggling insanely* OK, sorry for the spam, I thought I just had to bring out that specific phrase of irony...does anyone see the government protecting ethics here?

I agree that our laws are based on our ethical code. However this is not a protection of ethics, this is (pardon the liberal use of wordage) prudity.

Op-Ed about Howard being turned off, truly enjoyable

The fact that I'm a libertarian is one of the reasons I object fully to this act done by the government. Was Howard Stern hurting anybody physically or put anybody in danger? No. Did he infringe on anybody's rights or civil liberties? Absolutely not. This is a reason why I hate these censorship laws and everything they stand for. Who are they to say what is morally right or wrong? Some government officials who don't represent the views of the majority? We need to take away all this power the government has over us, otherwise, they will walk all over you. Remember that the best government is that which governs least.