LethalWolfe said:
Of course there are no clearly defined boundaries because we are dealing w/something that is not definable (I went into a bit more detail in the other Stern thread). And it is common for shows to recieve fines a year or more after their orginal air date because there is only so fast the FCC can review and "rule" on questionable content.
Stern has been getting fined since the first Bush was in office and recieved his biggest single fine when Clinton was in office. Were Bush #1 and Clinton also conspiring to get Stern off the air?
Stern isn't even the biggest fine reciever of late (of course that would change if the 1.5mil fine goes thru). CC got hit w/a $715,000 fine thanks to DJ "Bubba the Love Sponge." Bubba got *fired* but no one ever brings him up. Stern is just carried 35 stations now instead of 41. Why aren't people talking about the Bush/Bubb the Love Sponge conspiracy?
Again, Stern has made a career out of pushing the limits, incuring fines, and battleing w/the FCC. Why is it so different this time around (besides the fact that a company finally got tired of paying Stern's fines and dropped his show from the six stations that carried it)?
Guess what, posting in two threads just means you posted incorrect info twice. Stern has never been fined. There was, about 10 years ago, a $1.7 million settlement paid by Infinity Broadcasting that was basically extortion - Infinity had to pay because the FCC was burying their license requests and station acquisition requests in paperwork, and the FCC didn't want to go to court because they would have lost. Regardless, it was NOT a fine, it was instead treated as a tax-deductible "voluntary contribution."
I'll also repost your ignorance of "defined boundaries." In your "detail" you claim that a Supreme Court justice said "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it." In reality, Justice Potter Stewart said he knew OBSCENITY when he saw it, and the movie in question was NOT obscene. In other words, he was defending free speech in the face of the right-wing religious nuts who had brought the case to the Supreme Court in the first place, by saying that you can't just decide that something you don't like is obscene and thereby abridge someone's free speech rights. Nothing Stern says is obscene, and I challenge you to find an example of something he said on-air that is.
Next time try not to use the words of a justice who disagreed with you to support your view that everyone should have only the safe, boring radio content that you like as an option. You can't muzzle someone just because you don't like them, not in this country. We require a good reason for you to abridge free speech rights here, such as yelling "fire" in a movie theater can kill people. Anything less than a good reason, such as the "I know it's wrong when I see it even though I won't lay out any actual rules for you to follow!" smacks a little too much of book-burning. If you're really into that, there's several countries that will be happy to have you. Just don't try it in the USA.
