Clear Channel Dumps Howard Stern After Proposed Fine

[davecuse]

By fining Clear Channel the FCC is telling the radio station and in turn me that Stern cannot be heard. I don't understand why it's so difficult to see that....

I don't want my government determining what I can and cannot see or hear, Stern does not have a political agenda, his show is purely for entertainment geared towards adults. He has done an excellent job of gaining a huge fan base. I repeat that the only reason clear channel is dropping him is because of this fine. Essentially the FCC is forcing him to be dropped, i.e. babying me. I just want the choice to listen to what I want. And no this does not mean that everyone should have a venue, obviously Stern has done something right look at his ratings.

Clear Channel did..
Realize that this fine was something that they did not want to deal with in the future.

Clear Channel did not...
Wake up one morning and say to themselves, this guy is making us too much money, let's can him.

 

[Krizoitz]

By fining Clear Channel the FCC is telling the radio station and in turn me that Stern cannot be heard. I don't understand why it's so difficult to see that....

Because that is NOT what happened. Think of radio waves like roads. You can use the roads for various reasons, but you can't do so in any way you please. You can't drive the wrong way, you can't go past the speed limit, etc. These rules were put in place because any society can not exist without those rules. The FCC is not telling the radio station that Howard Stern can't be heard. They are telling them that he can't break the rules without consequences.

In fact if CC and Howard Stern wanted to they could broadcast his show at other times during the day in which that type of content is allowed. Much like on broadcast television. On network TV you can't say or do certain types of programming during certain times of the day. These standards were set up because people felt like EVERYONE should be able to be comfortable to a minimum extent watching during the day.

But what about people who want to watch porn, or hear swearing, or talk about penis sizes. Well thats what cable is for. Or video stores. Or the internet. Or Playboy magazine.

Why is it that your right to hear or see whatever you want whenever and whereever you want suprsedes everyone elses rights?

You are free to watch or listen or read whatever you want. Howard Stern is free to say and talk about whatever he wants. Clear Channel is free to carry his show or not if they want. But there are rules and there are consequences.

If enough people are still interested in Howard Sterns show then it will find a different time/place to be broadcast. No one is telling him he can't do that. Why can't he follow the rules and move his show to a time of the evening where that kind of content is allowed?

I don't want my government determining what I can and cannot see or hear, Stern does not have a political agenda, his show is purely for entertainment geared towards adults. He has done an excellent job of gaining a huge fan base. I repeat that the only reason clear channel is dropping him is because of this fine. Essentially the FCC is forcing him to be dropped, i.e. babying me. I just want the choice to listen to what I want. And no this does not mean that everyone should have a venue, obviously Stern has done something right look at his ratings.

The FCC isn't babying you, its not telling you what you can and can't listen to. It's not breaking in to your home and taking all your porno mags and unplugging the cable from your TV. Its merely saying that these are the rules which are in place. Play by them or get fined. All he has to do do stay on the air is change when his show is on. That's it. Or he can move to a different venue. Cable TV maybe. Its not like they are walking around and shooting people who say offensive things. Gimme a break, you want to talk about the Government outta control you talk about the Patriot Act. The FCC is not the Gestapo organization you make them out to be.

Oh and popularity doesn't make it right. I could give you many examples of where a person/group was popular and what they did to get there was wrong. But I'll leave it at that for now.

 

[applebum]

Because that is NOT what happened. Think of radio waves like roads. You can use the roads for various reasons, but you can't do so in any way you please. You can't drive the wrong way, you can't go past the speed limit, etc. These rules were put in place because any society can not exist without those rules. The FCC is not telling the radio station that Howard Stern can't be heard. They are telling them that he can't break the rules without consequences.

In fact if CC and Howard Stern wanted to they could broadcast his show at other times during the day in which that type of content is allowed. Much like on broadcast television. On network TV you can't say or do certain types of programming during certain times of the day. These standards were set up because people felt like EVERYONE should be able to be comfortable to a minimum extent watching during the day.

But what about people who want to watch porn, or hear swearing, or talk about penis sizes. Well thats what cable is for. Or video stores. Or the internet. Or Playboy magazine.

Why is it that your right to hear or see whatever you want whenever and whereever you want suprsedes everyone elses rights?

You are free to watch or listen or read whatever you want. Howard Stern is free to say and talk about whatever he wants. Clear Channel is free to carry his show or not if they want. But there are rules and there are consequences.

If enough people are still interested in Howard Sterns show then it will find a different time/place to be broadcast. No one is telling him he can't do that. Why can't he follow the rules and move his show to a time of the evening where that kind of content is allowed?


The FCC isn't babying you, its not telling you what you can and can't listen to. It's not breaking in to your home and taking all your porno mags and unplugging the cable from your TV. Its merely saying that these are the rules which are in place. Play by them or get fined. All he has to do do stay on the air is change when his show is on. That's it. Or he can move to a different venue. Cable TV maybe. Its not like they are walking around and shooting people who say offensive things. Gimme a break, you want to talk about the Government outta control you talk about the Patriot Act. The FCC is not the Gestapo organization you make them out to be.

Oh and popularity doesn't make it right. I could give you many examples of where a person/group was popular and what they did to get there was wrong. But I'll leave it at that for now.

Very good points all! And to take it one step further, Howard Stern can still continue to say whatever he wants on the channels he is on for as long as the stations are willing to pay the fine. The FCC isn't taking Stern off the air, they are just fining him for breaking rules (I do fully understand they haven't been consistent in their fining).

I am a man, and I like to see naked women. Just because I can't see this at 8 PM on network TV doesn't mean the FCC has taken away my rights. I can see all the naked women I want on the internet, I can switch over to HBO at 8 and probably see some there, I can wait til 10 and watch NYPD Blue and see some there, or even switch to E after 10 and see the broadcast of Howard's show (soft core porn practically), oh did I mention I can see all that I wanted to on the internet?

Sometimes it seems like we have been free so long in this country that we have become spoiled. We truly have no idea what it is like to live without freedom and "rights". I pray that we never have to find out.

 

[davecuse]

Because that is NOT what happened. Think of radio waves like roads. You can use the roads for various reasons, but you can't do so in any way you please. You can't drive the wrong way, you can't go past the speed limit, etc. These rules were put in place because any society can not exist without those rules. The FCC is not telling the radio station that Howard Stern can't be heard. They are telling them that he can't break the rules without consequences.

Your reasoning is false, in what way is talking about something at all like driving a 2,000 lb piece of metal down the highway at 90mph?

You are correct that society needs rules, rules to ensure people's safety, and rules to ensure that people have a voice. I repeat, by fining Clear Channel, the FCC is telling them that Howard Stern is not acceptable and putting undue pressure on them to drop his show. This is an indirect way of banning his right to free speech, and his right a public venue. It should not be the governments right to decide who is on the air, it should be the people's. Clearly the people are behind Howard, otherwise he would not have such stellar ratings.

 

[yamabushi]

If you have a right not to be offended by Howard Stern, do I have a right not to be offended by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingrahm, et al.? Should my poor child's ear have to be assaulted by their brand of political hate speech? I don't want to have to explain to my 7 year old child why her dad is 'unamerican' for his beliefs. I don't want to have to explain why the 'secular humanists' are ruining society. Why should I be forced to be put in this situation?

I was thinking along the same lines. I would rather have my child listen to uncensored 2LiveCrew than be assaulted by the lies and hate speech of Rush Limbaugh. Some other people obviously feel the opposite. Why are the views of some people on what is offensive validated by legislation while others are ignored? The airwaves are never going to be clean enough for everybody. In my opinion we either have a free society that protects free speech or we don't. It is starting to appear that the latter is true.

btw- I personally don't like Howard Stern, but I love freedom and democracy.

 

[Krizoitz]

Your reasoning is false, in what way is talking about something at all like driving a 2,000 lb piece of metal down the highway at 90mph?

You are correct that society needs rules, rules to ensure people's safety, and rules to ensure that people have a voice. I repeat, by fining Clear Channel, the FCC is telling them that Howard Stern is not acceptable and putting undue pressure on them to drop his show. This is an indirect way of banning his right to free speech, and his right a public venue. It should not be the governments right to decide who is on the air, it should be the people's. Clearly the people are behind Howard, otherwise he would not have such stellar ratings.

First, the FCC only fines a station when people bring violations to its attention by filing complaints. They do not go out of their way to hunt people down.

Second, the FCC IS telling Clear Channel what is acceptable because their are rules that say so.

Third, Howard Stern doesn't have a right to the radio airwaves any more than I do. Is my free speech being violated if a radio station doesn't want to carry what I have to say?

Fourth, there are lots of things you can't do in public, like have sex for example, because people have a right not to see it. Any society has to have some standards that all sides can live under.

Fifth, Howard Stern could have his show at other times during the day, why doesn't he do that? Then he could still be on the air?

Sixth, simply because he is popular doesn't mean the people are behind him. All it means is that SOME people are behind him. I guarentee you that group is no where NEAR the majority of Americans. Besides who says the majority is always right? The majority of people in this country used to think that slavery was ok. The majority of people in the world used to think the earth was flat. Heck the majority of the people in this country are Christian, does that mean we should start having Christian only laws? Majority doesn't make it ok, even if Howard Stern did have a majority of the people behind him (which he doesn't).

 

[davecuse]

the FCC IS telling Clear Channel what is acceptable because their are rules that say so.

So these rules are correct by default? Slavery used to be legal, that law changed for the better.

Howard Stern doesn't have a right to the radio airwaves any more than I do. Is my free speech being violated if a radio station doesn't want to carry what I have to say?

Clear Channel did want to carry him, just not pay the fines. If you had a radio show and were dropped because of FCC fines I would back you.

there are lots of things you can't do in public, like have sex for example, because people have a right not to see it. Any society has to have some standards that all sides can live under.

Having sex in the middle of the street is far different that a radio show, again your reasoning here is faulty. You should look into a Psychology class at your local college or university, they offer a great deal of insight into arguments.

simply because he is popular doesn't mean the people are behind him. All it means is that SOME people are behind him. I guarentee you that group is no where NEAR the majority of Americans. Besides who says the majority is always right? The majority of people in this country used to think that slavery was ok. The majority of people in the world used to think the earth was flat. Heck the majority of the people in this country are Christian, does that mean we should start having Christian only laws? Majority doesn't make it ok, even if Howard Stern did have a majority of the people behind him (which he doesn't).

I'm not saying that the majority of people think that his views are right, just that he should not be harassed and dropped from venues due to government fines for airing his views. It's not like he's trying to fulfill some political agenda over the airwaves, he's just trying to make people laugh. What's so wrong about that?

 

[LethalWolfe]

Your reasoning is false, in what way is talking about something at all like driving a 2,000 lb piece of metal down the highway at 90mph?

You are correct that society needs rules, rules to ensure people's safety, and rules to ensure that people have a voice. I repeat, by fining Clear Channel, the FCC is telling them that Howard Stern is not acceptable and putting undue pressure on them to drop his show. This is an indirect way of banning his right to free speech, and his right a public venue. It should not be the governments right to decide who is on the air, it should be the people's. Clearly the people are behind Howard, otherwise he would not have such stellar ratings.

Once again *Free Speech is not w/o it's limits.* No one has a *right* to have their own radio or TV show. Using public airwaves is a privilege not a right. They are regulated because they are a finite resouce. And "entertainment" speech is allowed less leeway than news or political speech. Once again, this isn't just happening to Howard Stern. Other DJ's have been fined and even fired. Stern is just making a big stink 'cause his huge "I am Howard. I get ratings. I am Untouchable" ego is getting deflated.

Once again, you are saying that CC, as well as every other media provider, should be forced to carry all content including content they do want to carry. How is that not totalitarian? What about their right to run their business w/o government interference?

Stern is no longer on the air in 6 markets. That's it. He is still on the radio. He is still on TV. If he webcasts his show he is still on the web. He can still write books. Go on the lecture circut. Even get a deal and go onto satilite radio. If this is the government's attempt to silence Howard Stern is a very, very, very poor attempt.

Yes Stern has a big fan base which is the only reason stations have paid for his more than 1 million dollars in fines (by far the most by any single person/show) over the course of his career. And CC is saying that, for them, the income generated by Stern is not enough to offset the penalties of carrying Stern's show. The market is speaking. At least the markets that CC aired Stern's show in. And, again, the FCC reacts to complaints. They do not monitor every broadcast every single minute of the day. If no one was complaining no one would be getting fined. People complained, shows got reviewed, and in this case Stern got the max penalties thrown at him. Which I don't see a problem w/because Stern has been fined many times in the past and knows where the lines are. But he crosses them anyway because it helps him get ratings. Which in the past was enough to save his @ss, but not anymore (maybe he's just not as popular as he used to be?). When you play with fire you are going to get burned.

And sense you are so offended by what is going on here I hope that you have contacted your state representatives, the FCC, ClearChannel, and your local radio station (assuming you live in a market that airs/aired Stern) and voiced your displeasure about this situation instead of only b*tching and moaning on an internet forum.


Lethal

 

[LethalWolfe]

davecuse, no offense, but you might want to read up FCC regulations, freedom of speech, and court decissions that deal with the two. This discussion would be a lot less circular if you knew what you were talking about.


Lethal

 

[davecuse]

Once again, you are saying that CC, as well as every other media provider, should be forced to carry all content including content they do want to carry. How is that not totalitarian? What about their right to run their business w/o government interference?

Please re-read my previous statements, as you have missed my point. Howard Stern was not dropped because Clear Channel just decided they didn't like him, he was dropped because of fines by the Government. So yes I agree that they should be free to run their business without government interference.

 

[Krizoitz]

So these rules are correct by default? Slavery used to be legal, that law changed for the better.

Those laws are the ones in place and he violated them and he was fined because of it.

Clear Channel did want to carry him, just not pay the fines. If you had a radio show and were dropped because of FCC fines I would back you.

Obviously they didn't want to carry him enough, otherwise they would have payed the fines.

Having sex in the middle of the street is far different that a radio show, again your reasoning here is faulty. You should look into a Psychology class at your local college or university, they offer a great deal of insight into arguments.

I will kindly ask you to refrain from making personal attacks like that thank you very much. My reasoning is fine, the point being that even in public not all behavior is permited. This is because I want to be able to walk down the street without having to see two people going at it. And I want to be able to scan the dial without having to hear about peoples penis size during the hours when this isn't allowed. If its past whatever time the rules change then yes it is my option to turn off the radio, but when the radio is supposed to be free of that sort of stuff and it isn't then the law and my freedoms are violated to.

You seem to be of the mind that freedom should be unlimited and that the radio waves should be free to be used however anyone wants them to be. Well whether you like it or not the people of this country and the Supreme Court have decided otherwise.

I'm not saying that the majority of people think that his views are right, just that he should not be harassed and dropped from venues due to government fines for airing his views. It's not like he's trying to fulfill some political agenda over the airwaves, he's just trying to make people laugh. What's so wrong about that?

Because he is doing so by breaking the rules. The airwaves are not free! They aren't there so you can say whatever you want whenever you want. Howard Stern doesn't have any more right to broadcast than I do. His ability to be on the radio is a privilege not a right, and just like any other privilege (driving for example) if you break the rules then you get punished, whether you like the rules or not. Again the key difference here between his freedoms being taken away and his privileges is that no one is telling him he can't say what he wants, just that he can't say it in certain areas, or at certain times. This is not only completely legal, but is necessary so that society can function with some modicum of stability.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Please re-read my previous statements, as you have missed my point. Howard Stern was not dropped because Clear Channel just decided they didn't like him, he was dropped because of fines by the Government. So yes I agree that they should be free to run their business without government interference.

It is your under lying, and previously stated, premise that Stern is the victim of some FCC witch hunt that I have the problem with. Stern has been fined (yet again). Other DJ's have been fined and/or fired. Stern has made a career of breaking the rules and having other people foot the bill. Now one company has said "enough is enough" and dropped Stern's show and some people start busting out the conspirancy theories. All the while Stern is crying like a spoiled brat that has been disciplined for the first time.

I guess I fail to see how fine-in-2004+Stern=Witch hunt, but all-previous-fines+Stern and/or fines+non-Stern-DJ are not witch hunts.


Lethal

 

[davecuse]

Ok, obviously you have your views and I have mine. This is a point that we disagree on, but this discussion is going nowhere. I don't think that either of us are going to change the other one's mind. So I vote for this thread to be closed.

 

[Koodauw]

And for everyone complaining about government regulation the FCC does not actively monitor broadcasts. It only investigates shows when it recieves complaints. All it took to set these standards over 20 years ago was a father driving w/his son in CA and heard Geroge Carlin's "7 dirty words" bit on the car radio. And people say one man can't make a difference.

l

Thank you Lethal. I've said FCC v. Pacifica a few times, but I guess no one was listening.

 

[MarkCollette]

Argh! The pain in my brain from reading the same statements, which have been refuted over and over, being repeated again and again.

I've noticed that aguments are now getting personal, which is never nice, but is to be expected due to some people's complete inability to read.

So, to be completely clear:

We know that freedom of speach does not involve radio station having to give you a show. WE KNOW THAT. Anyone writing that one more time is publically admitting to mental retardation.

We know that society needs rules to function. We know that applies to speach as well, for example "fire" in crowded room, "bomb" in airport etc. We just don't think that that applies to anyone talking about sex on the radio, television, etc. We think that those existing rules should be thrown out.

When someone is held to "community standards", then that is highly vague. Are polls taken to determine what is a community standard? No. Usually, it comes down to one of two things: either a judge thinks to himself what that standard might be, or it is defined by the number of people who complain. In any case it is a vocal minority, and not actually a measure of the majority. So, we know that it is not democratic. Furthermore, the Constitution is intended to protect the rights of the few against arbitrary impingement, which this violates as well.

What I'm getting at is, if the FCC is going to fine anyone, it should not be based on some arbitrary system, where they fine you more or less, based on the whining and hurt sentiments of a few vocal individuals. Instead it should be based on whether or not real harm has been done.

 

[davecuse]

Argh! The pain in my brain from reading the same statements, which have been refuted over and over, being repeated again and again

I was starting to think I was on my own.

 

[tveric]

First, the FCC only fines a station when people bring violations to its attention by filing complaints. They do not go out of their way to hunt people down.

That is technically true; however, the reality is that the FCC can pick and choose who they go after because you only need 1 complaint to go after somebody. I can write a letter complaining that the F-word was unbleeped on the Ryan Seacrest show, but the FCC will never go after him - on the other hand, the $495,000 fine was a result of ONE man's complaint. So, in effect, they can and do hunt down whomever they wish to bring down.

Second, the FCC IS telling Clear Channel what is acceptable because their are rules that say so.

Completely misleading statement. The FCC says "no sexual and/or excretory content" because that's indecent. Meanwhile, what exactly defines what that content is? There's sexual content on Friends every week - no one gets fined. There's sexual content on Oprah almost every day - no one gets fined. The actual "line" that you claim Stern crosses is completely arbitrary, subject to the opinions of those in charge of the FCC. These fines would be declared unconstistutional if the case was ever allowed to get that far, simply because of the (intentional) vagueness of the "rule".

Third, Howard Stern doesn't have a right to the radio airwaves any more than I do. Is my free speech being violated if a radio station doesn't want to carry what I have to say?

This is a ludicrous statement. If you could get 12-20 millions listeners every morning, radio stations would be fighting to get you on the air. In addition, you could (if you had the money) start your own radio station, get a license, and start broadcasting. So no, your free speech right isn't being violated. You have as much a right to the airwaves as Howard does. You just aren't entertaining enough to get someone to pay to put you on the air.

Fourth, there are lots of things you can't do in public, like have sex for example, because people have a right not to see it. Any society has to have some standards that all sides can live under.

The difference is, people could presumably see you have sex in public without intending to. You have go outside to live your daily life, you can't avoid that. You don't NEED a radio or TV, or internet for that matter, lots of people live without 1 or more of those things. Furthermore, even if you take on the responsibility of buying a radio, no one is forcing you to listen to Howard Stern. Completely inappropriate analogy to "sex in public".

Fifth, Howard Stern could have his show at other times during the day, why doesn't he do that? Then he could still be on the air?

He doesn't do that because the marketplace dictates that he go on the air in morning drive, when the most people will listen to him. This is still a capitalist country. In addition, if you're dragging out the "what about the children" argument, the morning is the only time parents actually supervise their children on a consistent basis - the afternoons and night are times when kids can put on their headphones and listen to whatever they feel like. I know I did.

Sixth, simply because he is popular doesn't mean the people are behind him. All it means is that SOME people are behind him. I guarentee you that group is no where NEAR the majority of Americans. Besides who says the majority is always right? The majority of people in this country used to think that slavery was ok. The majority of people in the world used to think the earth was flat. Heck the majority of the people in this country are Christian, does that mean we should start having Christian only laws? Majority doesn't make it ok, even if Howard Stern did have a majority of the people behind him (which he doesn't).

You're actually RIGHT on this score! We live in a country where the rights of the minority are reasonably well protected. That's why in this case, the minority of 12-20 million people that WANT to listen to Howard Stern should not be denied that right by a few hundred religious fanatics that write letters to the FCC over and over again. If you don't like Howard, don't listen to him. Write down a different radio station in your Arbitron diary. Throw your radio out the window! This is a free country - you have the right to do any of those things, but not the right to deny me the Howard Stern show just because you don't like it.

 

[MacNut]

For a newbie your quite smart.

 

[tveric]

Thanks. I'm only a newbie to posting here, though. And even that seems to be more a function of how little I post than how long I've been posting.

Read the Truth! http://www.howardstern.com/fcc.html

 

[davecuse]

Fight the good fight newbie! Although I'm not sure if telling on other shows is the best way to fight for freedom of speech, it is quite telling to see some of the other infractions that other shows have commited. I think that we as a society need to evolve a little, and understand that adults will do adult things, does everything really need to be sugar coated? I think that Howard understands his audience, and caters to what they (myself being one of them) want to hear in the name of good humor.

If Howard does decide to make the move to XM as he has hinted on his show, I do back the move and I will most certainly subscribe to the service. I am planning on getting XM as is, but this would be the icing on the cake.

 

[tveric]

Fight the good fight newbie! Although I'm not sure if telling on other shows is the best way to fight for freedom of speech, it is quite telling to see some of the other infractions that other shows have commited. I think that we as a society need to evolve a little, and understand that adults will do adult things, does everything really need to be sugar coated? I think that Howard understands his audience, and caters to what they (myself being one of them) want to hear in the name of good humor.

If Howard does decide to make the move to XM as he has hinted on his show, I do back the move and I will most certainly subscribe to the service. I am planning on getting XM as is, but this would be the icing on the cake.

I understand the reaction to telling on other shows - I had the same one. But here's the thing (and if you dig a little deeper into Howard's show each morning you'll understand this, he harps on it enough) - it's not so much telling on other shows as it is pointing out the hypocrisy of the FCC. Viacom's lawyers intend to fight the next round of fines to come their way, and the FCC knows this - didja notice that the last $495,000 fine was against 6 stations, and all 6 just "happened" to be Clear Channel stations? Two possible reasons for this:

1)The FCC doesn't want a confrontation in court, where they would get slaughtered for selectively fining some shows while other shows like Ryan Seacrest, Oprah Winfrey and more are ignored, even in the face of massive citizen complaints against those shows.

2) They're taking their time to build as good a case as they can, which would still get ripped apart if they don't fine other shows which have committed more egregious violations.

For example, the F-word is never said on Howard's show - even if a guest or caller says it, it gets bleeped (the show is on a delay handled by multiple computers - Howard has the ability to bleep such offenses, and if even if he misses it, there's another button operator to catch it on the second delay). Yet it went out on Seacrest's show unbleeped.

Oprah Winfrey, meanwhile, often airs sexual content that makes Howard's antics seem like a 70s sitcom in its offensiveness. One clip in which a guest graphically described what "salad tossing" means (look it up) was not allowed by Howard's general manager to be aired on his show, even though it had already aired on Oprah, uncensored. As our mostly uneducated poster pointed out before, the FCC can only investigate incidents that listeners complain about. If enough listeners complain, the FCC only has two choices:
1) Continue to ignore Oprah's show, strenghtening the argument that their "standards" are completely arbitrary and unconstitutional.
2) Fine Oprah - in which case all holy hell would break loose in this country. Oprah has even a bigger (and more right-of-center) audience than Howard, and if she got fined, believe me, you'd see some fireworks erupt. Once Oprah comes forward on the side of free speech, you've got an unstoppable combination of forces in this country that will overwhelm the religious right that's trying to make all us have only what THEY want on the airwaves.

For more info: http://www.howardstern.com/

 

[LethalWolfe]

That is technically true; however, the reality is that the FCC can pick and choose who they go after because you only need 1 complaint to go after somebody. I can write a letter complaining that the F-word was unbleeped on the Ryan Seacrest show, but the FCC will never go after him - on the other hand, the $495,000 fine was a result of ONE man's complaint. So, in effect, they can and do hunt down whomever they wish to bring down.

How are these fines different from all the other fines cause by Stern? What makes these fines so special?

Completely misleading statement. The FCC says "no sexual and/or excretory content" because that's indecent. Meanwhile, what exactly defines what that content is? There's sexual content on Friends every week - no one gets fined. There's sexual content on Oprah almost every day - no one gets fined. The actual "line" that you claim Stern crosses is completely arbitrary, subject to the opinions of those in charge of the FCC. These fines would be declared unconstistutional if the case was ever allowed to get that far, simply because of the (intentional) vagueness of the "rule".

It is vague because it is undefinable. It deals with completely subject matters where the context is as important as the word/material itself. It should be vague. It should be judged w/discretion and not hard and fast rules. A picture of a woman's vagina can be porn or it can be a visual aid in a sex ed or medical class. What was it that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in regards to defining porn,"I can't define it, but I'll know it when I see it." Presentation has a lot to do with it. I've watched a documentary on PBS about human sexuality and it showed clips of a couple having sex and the man ejaculating (last thing I ever thought I'd see on b'cast TV) but I don't think anyone would label it as "porn."

This is a ludicrous statement. If you could get 12-20 millions listeners every morning, radio stations would be fighting to get you on the air. In addition, you could (if you had the money) start your own radio station, get a license, and start broadcasting. So no, your free speech right isn't being violated. You have as much a right to the airwaves as Howard does. You just aren't entertaining enough to get someone to pay to put you on the air.

You are right. Everyone has the same right to air waves. Which is to say we all have no right to be on the air waves. It's a privilege<sp?> granted by the FCC which has been put in charge of regulating and maintianing this finite resource. And there are consequnces for not following regulations.

The difference is, people could presumably see you have sex in public without intending to. You have go outside to live your daily life, you can't avoid that. You don't NEED a radio or TV, or internet for that matter, lots of people live without 1 or more of those things. Furthermore, even if you take on the responsibility of buying a radio, no one is forcing you to listen to Howard Stern. Completely inappropriate analogy to "sex in public".

It has long been established that part of the reason the content of over-the-air broadcasts (be it radio or TV) can be regulated is because the audience has no control over the content that comes to them. The reason the same regulations don't apply to cable and satilite is because 1. they are not over-the-air b'cast tv and 2. by subscribing to them you are basically saying "yes, I want this content in my home." This is one reason why the regulation of porn on the internet has gone no where fast. Porn on the internet doesn't come to you, you go to it.

And in regards to the "think of the children" stance the precendent is that, basically, adults should be allowed to hear/watch adult content. On the flip side that doesn't give broadcasters freedom to air whatever they want. There is an attempt to maintain a happy medium.

And to top it all off something that may people seem to not be aware of is that different forms of speech as well as different mediums are afforded different amounts of protection. The internet is pretty much anybody's game. Print media is very protected (unregulated). Then TV and then radio. And for kinds of speech poltical speech and news are very, very, very protected. Educational content is also very protected. Entertainment and/or commercial speech are not very protected (by comparision).

And for the record I'm not a Stern fan or a Stern hater (although the movie was surprisingly good).

Most of what I've said here I've tried to keep simple and brief.


Lethal

 

[tveric]

How are these fines different from all the other fines cause by Stern? What makes these fines so special?

You show your lack of knowledge on the subject here, and don't take that the wrong way - not saying you're stupid or something, you just don't know the facts. The reality is that until two weeks ago Stern had NEVER been fined by the FCC. 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."

It is vague because it is undefinable. It deals with completely subject matters where the context is as important as the word/material itself. It should be vague. It should be judged w/discretion and not hard and fast rules. A picture of a woman's vagina can be porn or it can be a visual aid in a sex ed or medical class. What was it that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in regards to defining porn,"I can't define it, but I'll know it when I see it." Presentation has a lot to do with it. I've watched a documentary on PBS about human sexuality and it showed clips of a couple having sex and the man ejaculating (last thing I ever thought I'd see on b'cast TV) but I don't think anyone would label it as "porn."

Again, you have your facts screwed up, and this time backwards. Oliver Wendell Holmes provided the "fire!" in a crowded theater as an example of unprotected speech. In the same (concurring) decision, 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. Please.

You are right. Everyone has the same right to air waves. Which is to say we all have no right to be on the air waves. It's a privilege<sp?> granted by the FCC which has been put in charge of regulating and maintianing this finite resource. And there are consequnces for not following regulations.

We go back to this same argument again and again - why do you ignore the fact that there ARE no clear-cut regulations, and the FCC (a non-elected body that is supposed to be employed by us, the citizens) arbitrarily decides who to fine and when. That's not right. Next time they might come for you or some show you like, completely arbitrarily. That's why we can't allow government employees to just make up rules as they go along. It's a dangerous precedent, and if you don't understand that, maybe you'd rather live under the Taliban.

It has long been established that part of the reason the content of over-the-air broadcasts (be it radio or TV) can be regulated is because the audience has no control over the content that comes to them. The reason the same regulations don't apply to cable and satilite is because 1. they are not over-the-air b'cast tv and 2. by subscribing to them you are basically saying "yes, I want this content in my home." This is one reason why the regulation of porn on the internet has gone no where fast. Porn on the internet doesn't come to you, you go to it.

Howard isn't broadcasting porn - there's a world of difference between porn on the internet and a guy on the radio saying the word "penis". Especially since the same exact topics are broached in far more detail all over TV. How do you not get this?

And in regards to the "think of the children" stance the precendent is that, basically, adults should be allowed to hear/watch adult content. On the flip side that doesn't give broadcasters freedom to air whatever they want. There is an attempt to maintain a happy medium.

What does this even mean? It has nothing to do with your previous argument, so I can only assume you agree that kids aren't listening to Howard's show.

And to top it all off something that may people seem to not be aware of is that different forms of speech as well as different mediums are afforded different amounts of protection. The internet is pretty much anybody's game. Print media is very protected (unregulated). Then TV and then radio. And for kinds of speech poltical speech and news are very, very, very protected. Educational content is also very protected. Entertainment and/or commercial speech are not very protected (by comparision).

You have no idea what you're talking about here, and it shows. The Internet only "anybody's game" by de facto, not de jure reasons. There's also no laws establishing some sort of "pecking order" that you seem to have come up with on your own here - all of the mediums you listed are equally protected. Where's the law that says entertainment speech is less protected than political and news speech? Please admit that you were just talking out of your bunghole here, since it's painfully obvious.

 

[davecuse]

It has long been established that part of the reason the content of over-the-air broadcasts (be it radio or TV) can be regulated is because the audience has no control over the content that comes to them. The reason the same regulations don't apply to cable and satilite is because 1. they are not over-the-air b'cast tv and 2. by subscribing to them you are basically saying "yes, I want this content in my home." This is one reason why the regulation of porn on the internet has gone no where fast. Porn on the internet doesn't come to you, you go to it.

This is one argument that I do not understand. It's not like TV and Radio just magically start playing in your head. You have to go out and purchase an appliance to view or listen to this content, essentially saying "yes, I want this content in my home". Am I wrong on this?

If you want to live a sheltered life, you are welcome to. I know a few people who refuse to have a TV in their home. You don't have to have a TV or Radio to function as a part of society, it's a source of entertainment, treat it as such.

In my opinion Howard Stern has not done or said anything worth beheading him over. I just think that this an excesively lofty fine for something that's not a federal case, which has caused him to be dropped by 6 stations. But hey I could be wrong, and I'm sure someone will tell me that I am.

 

[Krizoitz]

This is one argument that I do not understand. It's not like TV and Radio just magically start playing in your head. You have to go out and purchase an appliance to view or listen to this content, essentially saying "yes, I want this content in my home". Am I wrong on this?

If you want to live a sheltered life, you are welcome to. I know a few people who refuse to have a TV in their home. You don't have to have a TV or Radio to function as a part of society, it's a source of entertainment, treat it as such.

In my opinion Howard Stern has not done or said anything worth beheading him over. I just think that this an excesively lofty fine for something that's not a federal case, which has caused him to be dropped by 6 stations. But hey I could be wrong, and I'm sure someone will tell me that I am.

The point is that because radio and broadcast tv are free it is expected that all people should be able to listen/watch with a reasonable expectation of not having to see/hear overly offensive content. Obviously free speech is also important you don't have the right to go through life without being offended either. In the case of TV and radio a balance must be maintained between freedom and being decent for most people.

On the one hand some people want there to be everything allowed, no controls. On the other hand some people want TV/Radio held to some ultra-puritanical standard. What the FCC tries to do is maintain a balance and Howard Stern has passed what most people feel is a reasonable level. You may disagree and you may voice your opinion but guess what, other people feel that his show doesnt in anyway benefit anyone and that it goes to far in terms of behavior to justify its free speech argument. Those people who are out to stop Howard Stern from violating the rules aren't all trying to set up some sort of uber-conservative agenda, anymore than those proponents of his show aren't all out to create total anarchy. Some of the people in this thread's arguments might be taken more seriously if they didn't attack people as if we were extremeists just because we feel that Howard Stern has gone to far.