Clear Channel Dumps Howard Stern After Proposed Fine

[Krizoitz]

So you wanna go after Stern, thats fine but go after all of the other offenders. Don't just single out Stern because you don't like him, play fair and go after everyone who is indecent or offends people.

They are going after others, such as "Bubba the Love Sponge", a look at the FCC website shows that they are pursuing other offenders, but they are a limited agency so they go after the big fish first. Plus they rely on individual complaints. One complaint against one host isn't worth as much as many complaints against Stern.

Do you go after the guy who is going 2 miles over the speed limit or 20?

 

[davecuse]

Not that I think he should have to, but I do hope that Howard goes to XM. I think by moving into this market he could essentially stick it to the FCC. Make XM a huge player in the market, and dwindle down the FCC's control to a few small radio stations that are left in the wake of people switching to satellite.

 

[MacNut]

They are going after others, such as "Bubba the Love Sponge", a look at the FCC website shows that they are pursuing other offenders, but they are a limited agency so they go after the big fish first. Plus they rely on individual complaints. One complaint against one host isn't worth as much as many complaints against Stern.

Do you go after the guy who is going 2 miles over the speed limit or 20?

Im not just talking about radio, I mean go after the offenders from Television too. And don't tell me you can't think of any because im sure you watch them everyday.

 

[tveric]

Now, I have provided you with the specific locations of law which Howard Stern has broken. The FCC page links to specifics involving the Howard Stern case as well as previous cases.

Nice try. You've provided us with quotations of laws, not laws which Howard has broken. The current people in charge of the FCC opine that Howard has broken those laws. Since when do we convict people in this country without trial? Would you also say a person defending themself in court on a speeding charge is guilty before you hear the evidence in the case? In other words, I asked how you're going to prove Howard is guilty, since you're so ready to crucify him for nothing.

I also noticed you chose to completely ignore my comments on the CDA, so I'll educate you myself. The Communications Decency Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (by a vote of 7 to 2, by the way - not even close!) for being vague and overbroad, and thereby in violation of the First Amendment. Guess what's going to happen when Viacom fights the latest fine in court. The fight may not even MAKE IT to the Supreme Court because the FCC regulations are vague and overbroad, and the fines could even be overturned in a lower court just based on precedent. You can't prove someone violated any regulations because the way the FCC's rules are structured, there's no clear boundary lines, regardless of how many times you parrot the words "Howard Stern crossed the line!"

 

[Krizoitz]

Nice try. You've provided us with quotations of laws, not laws which Howard has broken. The current people in charge of the FCC opine that Howard has broken those laws. Since when do we convict people in this country without trial? Would you also say a person defending themself in court on a speeding charge is guilty before you hear the evidence in the case? In other words, I asked how you're going to prove Howard is guilty, since you're so ready to crucify him for nothing.

I also noticed you chose to completely ignore my comments on the CDA, so I'll educate you myself. The Communications Decency Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (by a vote of 7 to 2, by the way - not even close!) for being vague and overbroad, and thereby in violation of the First Amendment. Guess what's going to happen when Viacom fights the latest fine in court. The fight may not even MAKE IT to the Supreme Court because the FCC regulations are vague and overbroad, and the fines could even be overturned in a lower court just based on precedent. You can't prove someone violated any regulations because the way the FCC's rules are structured, there's no clear boundary lines, regardless of how many times you parrot the words "Howard Stern crossed the line!"

Those ARE the laws, the United States Code and the Communications Act are laws enacted by Congress that create and grant the powers of regulation to the FCC.

The CDA dealt with the Internet which the FCC is not given control over, its not comparable to the Communications Act because the medium is sufficiently different. I ignored it because it had nothing to do with regulation of radio/tv.

Whether or not the laws are vague is not any fault of my own, so don't attack me on that one. You asked for the laws which Howard Stern has broken, I provided you those laws AND a relevant Supreme Court case backing it up. If you disagree with those laws thats not my concern, the point is they are the laws, and have been upheld in the past.

As for convicting people without a trial, it is done all the time. Speeding tickets, littering, jaywalking, all of these can and are fined without a trial. One can then ask for a trial to argue the fine, but a trial is not a prerequisite.

If you want to argue the merits of the case, fine be my guest. Perhaps you are right and Howard Stern will be vindicated, perhaps not. That doesn't change the fact that he has broken and been fined for violations of the current incarnation of the law.

And just in case I haven't been clear, here is a summary.

1) Did Howard Stern Break the Law?
Yes
2) What Law?
The Communications Act of 1934 and Title 18 U.S.C.
3) Does the FCC have the power to fine him for those violations?
Yes

Those are facts, clear and proven. You may be of the opinion that Howard Stern and others like him shouldn't be shackled by laws that you find vague like that. Ok fine. You're opinion may hold out in the end as the one the courts endorse. Ok fine. None of that changes the above factual situation, whether you think its right or not, it IS.

 

[davecuse]

As for convicting people without a trial, it is done all the time. Speeding tickets, littering, jaywalking, all of these can and are fined without a trial. One can then ask for a trial to argue the fine, but a trial is not a prerequisite.

That's simply not true, you do not get a fine for a speeding ticket unless you a) are proven guilty b)plea no contest or c)plea guilty. I don't know about the rest, but I'm really get tired of all of these car analogies. DRIVING IS NOT THE SAME AS TALKING. Putting an innocent bystander in harm's way by going too fast in a 2000lb hunk of metal is nowhere near the same as talking on the radio.

 

[Krizoitz]

That's simply not true, you do not get a fine for a speeding ticket unless you a) are proven guilty b)plea no contest or c)plea guilty. I don't know about the rest, but I'm really get tired of all of these car analogies. DRIVING IS NOT THE SAME AS TALKING. Putting an innocent bystander in harm's way by going too fast in a 2000lb hunk of metal is nowhere near the same as talking on the radio.

Actually yes it is. To avoid the fine you must contest the fine, otherwise you are expected to pay. Also knowing that you would try and red herring the issue by stating the difference between cars and radio, I listed several other non-violent offenses as well (such as jay walking).

Anyway, it seems like you are grasping at straws at this point. You can't claim anymore that he isn't breaking the law, so you try and claim that they can't fine him without a trial. Considering that they HAVE fined him and others in this manner, don't you think any decent lawyer would have covered that allready if it were an issue?

In order to broadcast you have to get a license, as part of that licencse you agree to certain rules, and punishments if you break those rules. This is one of those instances.

 

[tveric]

Considering that they HAVE fined him and others in this manner, don't you think any decent lawyer would have covered that allready if it were an issue?

I repeat: Howard has NEVER been fined by the FCC, nor have his parent companies EVER been fined by the FCC until last month. If you're referring to the $1.7 million Infinity paid in 1995, that was agreed upon by both parties to be a "voluntary contribution" - Infinity did it so that they could go on getting licenses without the paperwork getting buried, as the FCC was blackmailing them in doing, and the FCC agreed to it to avoid a court case which they would lose. Inifinity refused to pay a "fine" and made it clear they would fight any actual fine in court, and the FCC wished to avoid that. Both parties are in too deep for that to happen this time.

As for "Did Howard break the law? YES!" - well, maybe in your neck of the woods someone is considered guilty before they have their day in court. You can say "Did Howard get fined? YES" and that would be accurate, as of last month and this past week. This leads me back to the question, what's your point? If your point is that Howard has been fined, then yes, you're correct. If you're arguing that Howard has done something illegal, then you're wrong, at least under the "innocent until proven guilty" precept. Are you saying that we should just trust the FCC to determine for us who gets to stay on the radio and who doesn't? Are you saying anyone who disagrees with them shouldn't fight a proposed fine in court?

 

[MacNut]

Not that I think he should have to, but I do hope that Howard goes to XM. I think by moving into this market he could essentially stick it to the FCC. Make XM a huge player in the market, and dwindle down the FCC's control to a few small radio stations that are left in the wake of people switching to satellite.

Stern could easily destroy the very thing he pioneered by moving to satellite he could ruin the radio industry as we know it.

 

[Krizoitz]

I repeat: Howard has NEVER been fined by the FCC, nor have his parent companies EVER been fined by the FCC until last month. If you're referring to the $1.7 million Infinity paid in 1995, that was agreed upon by both parties to be a "voluntary contribution" - Infinity did it so that they could go on getting licenses without the paperwork getting buried, as the FCC was blackmailing them in doing, and the FCC agreed to it to avoid a court case which they would lose. Inifinity refused to pay a "fine" and made it clear they would fight any actual fine in court, and the FCC wished to avoid that. Both parties are in too deep for that to happen this time.

As for "Did Howard break the law? YES!" - well, maybe in your neck of the woods someone is considered guilty before they have their day in court. You can say "Did Howard get fined? YES" and that would be accurate, as of last month and this past week. This leads me back to the question, what's your point? If your point is that Howard has been fined, then yes, you're correct. If you're arguing that Howard has done something illegal, then you're wrong, at least under the "innocent until proven guilty" precept. Are you saying that we should just trust the FCC to determine for us who gets to stay on the radio and who doesn't? Are you saying anyone who disagrees with them shouldn't fight a proposed fine in court?

First you need to stop with the personal attacks. Next you need to back up your arguments with facts as I have done. Not all law and not all punishments work the way you see on TV. It is completely legal for the FCC to determine if he has broken the law, that is their job, they regulate the radio waves as per the law. When a station gets their broadcasting licensce they agree to the rules as laid out by congress and the FCC. They also agree to the fines should they break those rules. When they break those rules they are subject to the consequences. Thats the law, whether you like it or not. If you are going to argue something try arguing an actual point. If you really feel that the FCC can't fine someone then back it up with facts. In the mean time stop accusing me of lying.

As for my point, its simple. Howard Stern broke the rules and he has to deal with the consequences. Whether or not you like it is a different matter.

 

[MacNut]

Ok the point that tveric is trying to make is that there are no real guidelines as to what is bad from what isn't. Besides the "7 dirty words" its not really know what is considered bad. That said its hard to say what rules he broke because nobody knows what classifies as illegal content.

 

[Krizoitz]

Ok the point that tveric is trying to make is that there are no real guidelines as to what is bad from what isn't. Besides the "7 dirty words" its not really know what is considered bad. That said its hard to say what rules he broke because nobody knows what classifies as illegal content.

I agree the rules are vague, but I don't know if there is any real way to set clear limits in this case. What is slightly distasteful to one person is horribly offensive to another and perfectly fine to a third. It should be known that the FCC just doesn't say ok, its obscene lets fine it. A person has to make a complaint and give enough information that recordings can be found, probably from the radio station, next they review the material that is actually causing offense and determine it from there. Yes it is a human process, and somewhat arbitrary. Maybe they can be a little more clear, but then we get into the part where people like Howard Stern will be able to fight it on the minutest of technicalities. I personally think a review board is the best way to go in this case, but hey I could be wrong, happens all the time. What would you suggest instead?

 

[tveric]

I personally think a review board is the best way to go in this case, but hey I could be wrong, happens all the time. What would you suggest instead?

How about a court of law, the way we actually settle differences in a civilized free society? Duh.

And for the record, I obviously never said the FCC CAN'T fine Howard... they just did, last week! I was pointing out how those fines are unjust, and will be overturned if the case is ever allowed to get to court. I'm still not sure what, exactly, you're trying to point out. That you don't like Howard and you think he should be off the air? Fine, it's a free country, you can have that opinion. But you, and people like you, don't get to kick him off just because you don't like him. You have to provide a constitutionally sound reason. And you don't have one.

 

[Krizoitz]

How about a court of law, the way we actually settle differences in a civilized free society? Duh.

And for the record, I obviously never said the FCC CAN'T fine Howard... they just did, last week! I was pointing out how those fines are unjust, and will be overturned if the case is ever allowed to get to court. I'm still not sure what, exactly, you're trying to point out. That you don't like Howard and you think he should be off the air? Fine, it's a free country, you can have that opinion. But you, and people like you, don't get to kick him off just because you don't like him. You have to provide a constitutionally sound reason. And you don't have one.

First, not everything is determined in a court.

The Supreme Court has allready determined that the FCC is constitutionally allowed to fine people under the current laws. I put the link in the prior post. I'm sorry that you aren't willing to read it but its there. So it IS constituional at this point.

And we DO get to kick him out of an area where he isn't supposed to be doing something. Just like you can kick someone off the streets for lewd behavior.

I could keep giving examples. I could keep citing law and court cases. I could keep pointing out that you have yet to provide any evidence to back up your claims, something you asked me to do and I did. You just didn't like the fact that I did find them. It's like talking to a brick wall.

And I am going to point out yet again that if you continue to be so rude and harrassing rather than provide a sound argument that you shouldn't be in this forum. This isn't some trashy place, this is a place where we try and discuss things amicably. You seem to be missing that.

 

[tveric]

First, not everything is determined in a court.

Great statement to just throw out there without explaining how it's applicable. You already know these latest fines will be fought in court, an appropriate venue in this case. What's "everything"? Anyone who feels they've been treated unjustly can have their day in court in this country. So in this case, yes, the situation will be determined in a court.

The Supreme Court has allready determined that the FCC is constitutionally allowed to fine people under the current laws. I put the link in the prior post. I'm sorry that you aren't willing to read it but its there. So it IS constituional at this point.

I read it and already told you it was irrelevant. The case involved the George Carlin "seven dirty words" routine and I quote: "The ruling applied only to seven particular words, provided little guidance for defining indecency in general." The court agreed that broadcasting THOSE words was indecent, so the ruling basically said you can fined IF you use those words. Howard doesn't ever utter the seven "dirty words", nor does anyone on his show. Of course, you wouldn't know this, since you know nothing about the show; you only know Howard by reputation and assume he's a bad bad man.

As a side note, even that was a 5-4 vote 26 years ago. Hardly a ringing endorsement for censorship; yet, Howard abides by that decision, as he should. The next decision, in Howard's favor, won't even be that close. Vague and overbroad, remember? An example of a specific and not overbroad rule is: "You can't say the seven dirty words." Fine, we're all okay with that - it's specific, it's a rule that can be followed without people's opinions and politics getting in the way. Want an example of a vague and overbroad rule? "You can't say anything indecent." THAT'S unconstitutional. It allows for people to play favorites, to determine someone broke the law without any specific, factual basis; in other words, it's dangerous to free speech. I could easily argue that Rush Limbaugh is "indecent" because he engages in hate speech against liberals, and I'm offended and to me it's indecent. Should he be fined for that? Of course not, because it's a ridiculously vague rule.

And we DO get to kick him out of an area where he isn't supposed to be doing something. Just like you can kick someone off the streets for lewd behavior.

Again, ONLY if it's illegal. Still no proof that anything Howard has said was illegal.

I could keep giving examples. I could keep citing law and court cases. I could keep pointing out that you have yet to provide any evidence to back up your claims, something you asked me to do and I did. You just didn't like the fact that I did find them. It's like talking to a brick wall.

No, you obviously can't give ANY examples! When have you given an example of something illegal that Howard has said?

The problem is that no one knows what your claim is yet. Can you explain that for everyone's benefit? Three times I've asked what you're attempting to prove or point out, and apparently you don't even know yourself, since you haven't laid it out.

 

[Krizoitz]

tveric,
You continue to attack me personally and fail to do anything to support your own case. I begin to wonder if you are just doing this to be antagonistic and I will not play that game. You refuse to acknowledge what is put right in front of you simply because you do not like it.

You asked for information to back up my claims and I pointed it out to you. I in turn have done the same and you refuse to do so. I have continously asked you not to put forth personal insults but to discuss the matter at hand and you refuse to do so. Enough is enough. If you wish to actually discuss the matter at hand then do so. If you wish to insult me and attack me then too bad, you aren't going to be around these boards much longer would be my guess.

It is sad that you can not disagree with someone and treat them with respect, all the while complaining about freedom of speech. I recommend that you sit down and think on that for awhile. No one is saying you have to agree with me, but if you are going to disagree in this forum, please do so in a civil and polite manner and I have strived to do this whole time.

 

[tveric]

I'm glad you've finally conceded that you have no points. I could have done without the lengthy red herring discussion of my so-called attacks, but whatever, I guess it's important to you that you save some face in an online forum.

Now that I've gotten you to admit that you really didn't know what you were talking about when you jumped into this discussion, I feel like I've made a difference in at least one person's life! Thanks, support free speech, and vote Kerry in 04!

Bye now.

 

[Krizoitz]

I'm glad you've finally conceded that you have no points. I could have done without the lengthy red herring discussion of my so-called attacks, but whatever, I guess it's important to you that you save some face in an online forum.

Now that I've gotten you to admit that you really didn't know what you were talking about when you jumped into this discussion, I feel like I've made a difference in at least one person's life! Thanks, support free speech, and vote Kerry in 04!

Bye now.

You really do live in your own world don't you? You only see what you want to see.

The only person without points here is you. My points are pretty clear.

Howard Stern violated the rules.
The FCC is legally and constitutionally allowed to fine him for his behavior.
They did so.

You may not like it or that they can but that doesn't change the facts. Someday maybe you'll learn to accept facts. Until then you may continue living in your own fantasy world.

 

[tveric]

Howard Stern violated the rules.
The FCC is legally and constitutionally allowed to fine him for his behavior.
They did so.

How can you say the FCC is constitutionally allowed to fine Howard for his behavior when there hasn't been a constitutional test of fining for "indecency"?

And please don't prattle on and on AGAIN about your George Carlin Supreme Court decision. I already told you that decision SPECIFICALLY stated they were upholding the FCC's right to fine a station for airing the "seven dirty words" and you chose to ignore my statement. Living in your own world, aren't you?

 

[Krizoitz]

How can you say the FCC is constitutionally allowed to fine Howard for his behavior when there hasn't been a constitutional test of fining for "indecency"?

And please don't prattle on and on AGAIN about your George Carlin Supreme Court decision. I already told you that decision SPECIFICALLY stated they were upholding the FCC's right to fine a station for airing the "seven dirty words" and you chose to ignore my statement. Living in your own world, aren't you?

There has been a constitutional test, you just don't like it. The decsion didn't merely pretain to George Carlin's use of those seven words, it was the content and type of word and their usage as indecent. A law is not written that specifically outlines every possible scenario that could happen, can you imagine having to have a law for every possible type of murder, the time of day that it happened etc?

Also you're "and I quote"

The ruling applied only to seven particular words, provided little guidance for defining indecency in general.

You never quote the source, where did you find it. Its not in the Courts finding, although it may be somones opinion of it. If its an opinion then it still isn't law.

You also maintain that because it was a close decision its somehow less valid? By those standards alot of decisions are less valid.

Until the court reverses the current decision the law is constitutional. Can that change? Sure it can. Do you have the right to try and change it? Absolutely! Do you have to agree with the current law? Nope.

You have every right in the world to think that Howard Stern should be able to do what he wants. You have every right to want to change the law and to disagree with it, but that doesn't change the fact that they do have the right to fine him and they can and did. As it stands he broke the current law. And he was punished for it. I don't see why it is so hard for you to grasp that concept.

You think my argument is faulty? Fine provide me with some evidence to back up the fact that the law is currently unconstitutional. Provide me with evidence that the FCC doesn't currently have the right to fine him. Provide me with proof that he didn't break the law. Something anything. You have YOUR homework, do it or go away.

 

[davecuse]

I think that this "discussion" needs to get taken down a notch. It's getting a little heated. You both have good points, true the FCC can fine Clear Channel, but should they be able to? I do not think so.

There are many things in this world that I would like to see changed, for Howard unfortunately I think is a cause that he is going to give up on. Clear Channel is not willing to take the matter to court, thus they have dropped the show.

That is all beside the point. Yes I understand that these vague rules governing decency are in place, however I believe that they are improper. I just think that the government needs to more clearly define what is legal and illegal, and make some of the loopholes in the system disappear. If certain laws were more clearly defined, we'll say tax code for example, corporations would not be able to form tax shelters and we would all be much better off.

Before you jump down my throat for this analogy let me explain. The loopholes in the tax code allow for big corporations to massage the system, just as I believe the FCC is doing in this case. Let's face it, is the world going to crumbling down because Howard Stern is on the radio? No, so let's concentrate on some of the bigger issues.

How about we dissolve the FCC and put their funding towards nanotech research? Our government is supposed to be for the people, when it comes down to it who wants to be told that they have to shut up? And please don't bring up past points about the medium he's using, just look at the big picture, put yourself in his shoes. The man is just trying to entertain, is that such a crime against humanity?

 

[tveric]

Bravo! When you get down to it, the two sides of this discussion are pretty well defined - the anti-Stern camp wants to see their values imposed on everyone else, and the anti-censorship camp actually believes that people should have to freedom to listen to whatever they want to listen to. It's really as simple as that; it's almost a mirror of the ultra-conservative/moderate split in this country. Ultra-conservatives want morality legislated, and of course, it's their morality. Moderates would rather live and let live.

 

[Krizoitz]

Bravo! When you get down to it, the two sides of this discussion are pretty well defined - the anti-Stern camp wants to see their values imposed on everyone else, and the anti-censorship camp actually believes that people should have to freedom to listen to whatever they want to listen to. It's really as simple as that; it's almost a mirror of the ultra-conservative/moderate split in this country. Ultra-conservatives want morality legislated, and of course, it's their morality. Moderates would rather live and let live.

Sorry but I disagree (imagine that). I have no interest in imposing my values on everyone. Personally I hold many views that might be labeled conservative, for example, I think homosexual acts are immoral, but I support gay marriage because its not my place to tell them what to do as long as it doesn't hurt me. And believe it or not if I actually felt like they were trying to silence Howard Stern gestapo style I would be one of the first to defend his right to speak. However I feel that this is a case of time and place rather than a case of total silence. I think that he has the right to his views AND the right to express them, just not on daytime radio. Why can't he do his show after 10? Why can't he do it on cable tv or the internet? If they tried to get him off one of those then I would totally disagree with you. I guess I just see daytime broadcast radio as a place where yes, certain minimum standards of decency should be enforced. Its not about making everyone hold the same morals anymore than laws about public nudity are forcing others not to be nude at all. Its about being able to respect each others differences and live in a society where everyone can feel comfortable. Its like the old saying "a place for everything and everything in its place". I just don't feel that the kind of content Howard Stern is broadcasting should be on daytime radio. Oh and before you label ME an ultra-conservative I plan to vote for Kerry, and I voted for Gore.

 

[MacNut]

The reason Stern is on in the morning is because thats the best time to be on the radio. It is what prime-time is to TV, when people listen the most. Radio stations make the most money in the morning with the drive-time audience. That is how Stern became who he was today. What ever market you go to the morning drive is the anchor of the radio stations day. They are what Friends is to NBC. Nobody will listen if Stern is on at 11pm but they listen when he's on at 6am. Its all about making money. Watch Private Parts it will explain everything.

 

[tveric]

If that's really the only thing you mind about Howard Stern having a slot on American radio - the fact that he's on in the morning - have you considered that the morning is actually the time that parents are most likely able to monitor what their kids listen to?

Think about it - what do most kids do in the morning? Wake up, eat breakfast with parent, ride in car with parent to school. If a parent doesn't want them listening to Stern, they're not.

Meanwhile, when I was ages 12 and up, I used to take my Walkman to bed with me and listen to NY's Z-100 broadcast "Lovelines" at 11 pm. Some of the most graphic sex talk you could ever imagine. Did my parents know I was listening? No. Would they have approved? No friggin way.

By the way, am I a raging psychopath or serial rapist due to hearing all the sex talk on the radio as a child? No.