This may be a lame argument but here it goes, I have cable which shows my local 'Broadcast" stations but i pay for it since its on my cable lineup, so does this mean that its not broadcast if I pay for it? Same could be said with Direct-TV since they now show local "Broadcast" stations. Could this be a loophole in the law since I assume this law was passed way before Cable was wide spread.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Clear Channel Dumps Howard Stern After Proposed Fine
- Thread starter MacNut
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
MacNut said:
Its more like those stations are included at no cost. Because you can get those channels for free anyone I mean.
Krizoitz said:
Wait a second - doesn't benefit anyone? 12-20 million listeners every day listen to Howard. A lot of them, myself included, find that rush-hour traffic is bearable, even enjoyable, if we have his show to listen to while we're stuck. Doesn't benefit anyone? With millions of listeners, how could anyone make that argument?
No one thinks that you're an extremist because you don't like Howard Stern, just like no one thinks I'm an extremist because I don't like Rush Limbaugh. The difference is, I don't want Rush off the air, and I understand that there should be something for everyone on the airwaves - there's plenty of room. You cross the line into extremist when you declare someone should be taken off the air without any evidence that they're harmed anyone - basically you want them gone because you don't like their type of entertainment. That's extremism.
Krizoitz said:
I still think that this whole argument is off base. Is it or is it not true that you have to go out and actively buy a radio to get this content?
If you have to buy a piece of hardware to listen to a radio station, aren't you in essence subscribing? And telling the content provider, hey I want to listen to your show, otherwise I wouldn't have bought the radio in the first place.
Do you also think that if I go to a computer lab I should not be able to access howardstern.com? It is very much the same premise, you have to go out and actively search for the content provided on both radio and the internet.
LethalWolfe said:
I think it's been pointed out at least 5 times if not more that the fines are tremendously greater than before, for an act that is not really new. Like orders of magnitude more.
Please, no more asking this same question over and over, without reading any previous posts. We need to cut out the redundancy from this thread with a lawn mower.
LethalWolfe said:
There's a difference between obscenity and porn. Porn need not be obscene. And judges have deemed much nastier things as not being obscene. Just because it makes some mormon's pulse race, does not mean that it's grounds for censorship AT ALL.
LethalWolfe said:
Umm, the initial reason for regulating the air waves was because of the physics that if I broadcast on the same frequency as you, then none of our stuff gets through. As well, for public safety, it was decided that what you said had to be regulated, so no one is pretending to be the President on the radio, saying that it's time to kill all the Ukrainians, or any other such disruptive thing. These are matters of coordination, and national security. I don't see how, when some puritans lobbied congress to enforce their morality on us, and decided that talking about sex and flatulence, that that falls under the same blanket of necessity. Add the ad nauseum arguments about freedom of speach that take the usual page.
LethalWolfe said:
Err, satellite is over the air. Radio and satellite are the same thing, it's just that with one you buy a radio, and one you buy a satellite dish. The economic barrier to entry is the only difference, and the satellite costs are falling. Satellite is just less regulated because it's newer, and the FCC knew that its bull**** interference could never stand up in court (for any medium), and when a new medium came, it had to bow out of the way. It's just not rectified on the old mediums due to inertia.
In all these mediums, they're broadcast over the air, or on a wire, a decision has been made by the viewer to 1) buy equipment to listen, and 2) actually choose the frequency to listen to. Anyone's incompetence at choosing the wrong frequency is their problem. Especially since the "damage" from a wrong decision is at most some hurt feelings, or other such insignificant thing.
Plus, if all the media corporations have been able to legislate adding data to the information flow to say if something can be saved or not, why have they not added more bits to describe the content? Then the airwaves could be totally openned, and all the pansies can get a vchip radio, a vchip TV, etc. and censor themselves, instead of the rest of us?
The happy medium is to allow us to have the control over ourselves, not to enforce it upon us.
davecuse said:
Yes you have to purchase the hardware but the idea is that the content is free to everyone, and that everyone should have the right to listen to it with a reasonable assurance that overly offensive content isn't going to be there.
Different people will agree on what offensive content is of course, but we aren't talking about borderline here, its pretty clear that Howard Stern has violated the rules as we have them. The real complaint in my mind is why they let it go on for so long.
I'm not saying there isn't a market for what he wants to broadcast, just that there are other markets available where those rules won't be broken. And hey if you really feel that the rules should be changed fine, but its easier to allow people to get potentially offensive content from elsewhere than to keep that content available and expect people un-intentionally exposed to it to forget it.
I mean its better to allow people to go get drunk in specific places than have alcohol randomly come out of a drinking fountain at McDonald's by accident to someone who doesn't want to drink it. I know I know bad analogy but it's been a long day, I think you get the point.
Krizoitz said:
Because some industry players have chosen a business model where the end user had an upfront cost, with no residual cost, has no bearing whatsoever on people's constitutional rights. I can give out free pieces of paper on the street, or I can charge for them. But, it's still my choice what I write on them. You are assuming that a balance needs be made between freedom, and what some people deem to be decency. Considering that everyone's opinion of what is decent is different, and the right to freedom is inviolable, I think it should be obvious that your assertion is not just illegal, but practically impossible. The current attempts to keep everyone happy are just a kludge. They're intended to keep a statistical majority happy. For example, not being allowed to say/do certain things before a certain time, is because a statistical majoirty of kids are asleep after that time. That's is why no fines should ever be given because of a single, or even a few complaints. Because just as the system does not protect the few kids awake after midnight, we recognise that it will not protect everyone who doesn't like what they hear, and never can.
So even if we allow this censorship due to your assertion that we need this balance, then it should still be impossible for a single complaint to cause a fine.
Krizoitz said:
I disagree. This is only my opinion though, but I assert that there are individuals who have an "uber-conservative agenda", and they are attacking all pillars of secular freedom which stand against their agenda. And why should my assertion, which sounds paranoid delusional, actually be imminently obvious instead of thrown out immediately? Because I was raised a christian, and I have sat in church and listenned as people planned ways to stop people from being able to be free, and being forced to follow these people's morality. Sure, they don't talk in dark rooms, with their faces in shadows, but instead discuss these things while eating cookies and juice together on Sunday. And they don't have pantheons of power, but they do know that if they raise a stink to a politician, then they can probably get their way. They take glee in making people live under the same restriction they live under.
This is a struggle. It is an actual conflict. That sounds really quite silly, it's like admitting your nemesis is Ned Flanders. These people believe that there is a war on earth, between good and evil. They think that our freedoms allow evil, and must be stopped. That they, as agents of good, must stop our freedoms. These aren't crazy terrorists, these are all of the fundamanetalist christians all over the world. Well, actually, some of them are terrorists, like the ones who kill abortion doctors. That's why we can't back down from our right to freedom. That's why we have to ensure that all options are open to everyone, and it is our personal choices which dictate what we do, and not another's.
MarkCollette said:
You do have control over yourself, no one is forcing you not to watch/listen to Howard Stern.
Just because you can't drive your car through the middle of a park doesn't mean your freedom to drive is being taken away.
Radio/TV are like public parks. They are there for EVERYONE'S benefit. Therefore a minimum level of decency needs to be maintained so everyone can reasonable be allowed to enjoy it. This isn't to say you make the park a complete conservative paradise. Women don't have to completely cover themselves for example. But they aren't allowed to run around naked and fornicate either.
Telling people that they don't have to buy a radio or watch TV is like telling them they don't have to go to the park. Yes its true, but the purpose of the park is for the use of everyone. Likewise radio is meant to be usable by everyone, so there are certain rules you live by.
If you want to run around naked you don't do it in the park. No one says you can't do it, just not in certain places. Likewise no one is saying you can't listen to howard stern, he just can't broadcast in certain places without following certain rules. He follows the rules he can stay and play with everyone. Otherwise no more park for him.
Oh and telling people they can avoid his station is like asking them to be able to just avoid a certain area of the park. Fine if you are used to the park, but when you travel you don't know where.
Regardless the idea is that the park shouldn't HAVE to be avoided because of things like that. Same with radio.
Most people who complain about Stern and all the other shows didn't just happen upon the show by accident, they are purposely listening to find something to complain about. People have known for years what Stern is about, the fact that he is just now getting fined is kinda strange don't you think. Its all just a big form of tattling at the playground. If Stern was so offensive to people than why wasn't there a big outcry 10 years ago when Stern was in his prime. Why because he brought in great ratings, plus Michael Powell wasn't at the helm of the FCC either.
MacNut said:
So basically we shouldn't complain about it now just because he got away with it before? I disagree, I wish people had complained more before, but maybe it wasn't seen as big a problem then. Regardless the thing is that he has broken the rules and he has been breaking them. Either he needs to clean up his show, move it to a different time, or find a different outlet where he can get away with it.
Krizoitz said:
Umm, when they force him off the air, then my option to listen to him has been removed, no matter what I personally choose.
Put generically, if an option is open to anyone, then they can all exercise freedom to follow that option or not. But, if you completely remove that option, then no one has that freedom anymore.
When the FCC fined Stern off the air, then they forced me to not be able to listen to him. Elementary logic.
Krizoitz said:
You're trying to draw an analogy here to the radio thing. But the difference is the consequences. A car can crush a pedestrian to death. Naughty words you hear, can not.
Krizoitz said:
I'm not sure which bland village you live in, but in my city, and others nearby, we don't lower our parks to some theoretical lowest common denominator.
In Calgary, we have parks, that are each specifically for: skate boarding, bird watching, ice skating, boating. So if you don't like the activity, then tough luck, you can leave.
In Edmonton, they have a water fountain by city hall where the youth go topless in summer. If you don't like it, then tough luck, you leave.
In Ontario, and some other provinces, it is completely legal for women to be topless anywhere. If you don't like it, then tough luck, you leave.
In Vancouver, they have a nude beach, where people of all ages go completely nude. If you don't like it, then tough luck, you leave.
In a multicultural society, with distinct values that are truly respected, one does not foist restrictions on everyone, but merely allows for locales where people have the option to participate or not.
Krizoitz said:
I didn't say that people shouldn't listen to the radio at all, merely that they should stick to their frequencies while I stick to mine. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Krizoitz said:
Again, let's make the distinction between all parks, and specific parks. As well, let's make the distinction between all radio frequencies, and specific ones. I can go completely nude in a specific beach in Vancouver, just not in other specific ones. Howard Stern is only allowed to broadcast for the station he's employed for, but cannot legally buy a gun, walk into another radio station, and force them to allow him on their frequency. So, I can listen to his show on his frequency, and you can listen to the other frequencies. Plain and simple.
Krizoitz said:
Actually no. If I travel to Mexico, and they have arbitrarily different laws, then it's my responsibility to research them before I go. If I plan on going anywhere new, then it's always my responsibility to plan ahead. If I fail to plan ahead, then the results are my fault. In fact, most of us go to new places to explore, and learn new things, not to be sheltered into our old mode of existance but happen to be in a different location.
If I travel to another country, like France, and bumble my way about, and land up on a beach, and see some tits, and I have some utter dislike and revulsion of tits, then that's my fault. In no way should I ever be able to have someone fined or jailed because of my own petty sensetivites.
Ignorance is not something to be catered to, by telling people that if they haphazardly throw themselves into a new situation, that they'll be guaranteed to feel comfortable. Hell, some of us seek out that discomfort, because it makes a good story to tell others, when we get back.
Yes they fine him, so he is not on the radio anymore, but he can be elsewhere. Radio isn't the only option.MarkCollette said:
You aren't allowed to listen to him on the radio, you can listen to him elsewhere?
I'm talking about your average, regular public park. Yes there are specialty parks, just like there are things like the Internet and Cable TV. Those are your skateboard parks and nude beaches, not different radio stations.
Again we aren't talking about foisting values on anyone. No one is saying don't listen to Howard Stern at all, and no one is saying he can't have his show. He can do it on cable tv. He can do it over the internet. He can do it over satelite radio. He can do it in the evening hours when it IS allowed on radio. He can sell videos. He just can't do it in one specific place (radio) during specific hours.
You are drawing a minute distinction that each frequency is the unique place. I am trying to point out that daytime radio in general is the place where people are suppposed to be able to not have to put up with Howard Stern and that there ARE places where you can get it.
Not plain and simple. It isn't about frequencies, its about mediums. Daytime radio follows one set of rules and Howard Stern breaks them. He can go to any of the other mediums just like you can go to any of the other parks, but daytime radio is the public park where we are supposed to be free from worrying about whether we are going to be flipping through and have our kids have to hear about some guys penis size.
Except in order to find radio stations they DO want to listen to they have to go through those stations. Its not like being able to fly over Mexico if you don't want to go there. People have the expectation and right to not have to worry about hearing that sort of stuff on the radio. Plain and simple. You want to hear it, fine, go to one of the many avenues where it is acceptable. This is one where it has not been allowed and he has been breaking laws that are allready in place. Let him take his show elsewhere. He got away with it for a long time. Well eventually the rules caught up to him.
Krizoitz said:
You drone on and on using the same falsehood every time to support your argument. To you it's all about: Howard Stern broke the law. How is it that you have ignored everyone who has told that there ISN'T any law that Howard has broken? How many times can you ignore that fact? In other posts you even demonstrated clearly that you don't even know what specific rules are in place! If you did know, and if you knew anything about constitutional law and the precedents have been set, you'd know that Howard breaks no law on the air.
But then again, maybe you still wouldn't know, because you also obviously haven't listened to his show.
Here's the other thing: you, or anyone else, can't tell Howard, "well, you can do your show elsewhere, so get off FM radio." Again, this is not Taliban-run Afghanistan. If I don't like your little corner store in my neighborhood, I'm not allowed to force you to move it just because you sell lottery tickets or anything else that offends me, unless it's illegal. And let me stress again: HOWARD HAS NOT BROKEN ANY LAW. You predicate your entire argument on the supposition that he has, yet he hasn't, so your whole argument is smoke and mirrors.
All this talk, talk, talk, is irrelevant anyway. I'm going to be very happy when Viacom takes the FCC to court this time instead of donating a "voluntary contribution." The FCC will lose, they'll be forced to adopt an objective set of rules instead of the current uncontitutional vague ones, and all hell will break loose on morning radio, upsetting people with sticks in their asses even further. Nothing will make me happier.
MarkCollette said:
Good example of free speech - however, if you are being aggressive and forcing people to take your paper, if you are shouting and using offensive language with children around, then you can be moved on or arrested for being a public nuisance. Also, if you are selling those papers and don't have a liscense to do business, you can be fined or perhaps worse. And, if you were in a mall trying to hand these out, free or at a fee, you could be asked to leave or arrested for trespassing since you are on private property. Now all of these are examples of how your message can be legally silenced without it being a violation of free speech, because I have the right to walk down the street unmolested, the state has the right to lisence all businesses, and the mall has the right to determine who can come on their property and what rules will be adhered to while one is there. But, there are also ways to do each of these freely as well. You can stand quietly on the sidewalk and hand your papers to any wishing to take them, you can get the proper license to sell your papers there on the sidewalk, and you can get permission from the mall to handout/sell your papers. All freedoms have their boundaries - sometimes those boundaries are consistent and obvious, sometimes they are inconsistent, and sometimes they are illegal and one must be prepared for a fight, jail, or even death to remove that illegal boundary.
tveric said:
YES HE HAS. The FCC has regulations in place. The Supreme Court has upheld the ability of the FCC to regulate the airwaves. Howard Stern has violated those regulations. Regulations = LAW. When he breaks them he gets fined. Ergo he is breaking the law. You may not agree with the law but he has broken the ones in place. I don't know how you can claim he hasn't broken the law when he quite clearly has.
FINE LETS SAY HE BROKE THE LAW, THAN FINE EVERYONE WHO BROKE THE LAW. DONT MAKE STERN A SCAPEGOAT FOR AMERICAS PROBLEMS. IF YOU WANT TO FINE SOMEONE FOR BREAKING THE LAW WHY NOT JANET JACKSON, SHE FLASHED AMERICA, DID STERN DO THAT, NO.
Sorry for yelling but im getting upset over your argument.
Sorry for yelling but im getting upset over your argument.
MacNut said:
Why are you getting upset? I understand if you don't agree with the fine. Or if you think the law should be changed. But that doesn't change the fact that it is the rule and he has been breaking the rules and he is now getting punished for doing so. I don't understand how that is out of line. We aren't talking about strapping him down and ripping out his tongue cause we just don't like what he is saying all of a sudden. We are talking about applying the rules in place to violations which occured.
Its like saying you shouldn't get a fine for breaking the speed limit just cause other people are doing it and not getting caught. Or because you have gotten away with it in the past. You are still breaking the rule.
This is the reason i started this thread in the first place, because Stern is getting fired from CC for things he has said for years and if CC was so upset why did they keep him on the air all this time. This is nothing but a witch hunt and Stern is the witch.
If Stern hadn't gotten fined, does anyone really think that Clear Channel would have dropped him? The bottom line is that he did not break a clearly defined "rule", he said something that someone sort of thinks went over the line. Want to know what offends me? Bush's ad campaign a few weeks ago that had pictures of bodies being carried away from the WTC. Why doesn't the FCC fine Dubya?
My point is this. If you're going to set a standard for decency where does it end?
My point is this. If you're going to set a standard for decency where does it end?
Krizoitz said:
Okay, one last time, because you keep ignoring the key point (how convenient, by the way).
You say the FCC has regulations in place. Fine, tell me what those regulations are, if you even know. Then show me where Howard broke those regulations. You keep stating he has, yet you know of no instance where he actually has. Please provide an example.
My point is, you cannot. That's why Howard hasn't broken any law.
Remember the CDA? Do you even know what it is? Do you know why the Supreme Court overturned it? If you can answer those key questions, you, maybe, will understand why Howard hasn't broken any law. And please, no more arguments of "YES HE HAS". That's at about the level of "I'm rubber you're glue." I doubt that would stand up in court either.
You have your homework. If you choose to do it and educate yourself, it would at least show that you care enough to not take someone else's word for everything you believe, and actually find out the facts for yourself.
tveric said:
Wow you are getting desperate, instead of arguing your point from any grounds you try and attack my level of knowledge, and hurl personal insults at me. But since you want facts, here you go:
1) Communications Act of 1934, updated as late as 1996 grants the FCC the power to fine or even remove the licencse of stations who broadcast indecent material (profane/obscene). Section 303 subsection M-1-B in particular.
Communications Act of 1934 (Ammended 1996)
2) The Supreme Court upheld the FCC's right to regulate the radio waves, and that this is not a violation of Free Speech. Interesting distinctions include the fact that because people aren't able to be forewarned (they are tuning in and out).
FCC v. PACIFICA FOUNDATION
3) Information from the FCC itself can be found here with information about where in US law it is legal for them to fine a radio station. That information if you don't want to look for it can be found in the Title 18 United States Code section 1464.
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.
And please refrain from posting such personal attack posts in the future, I'm not afraid to report them to the moderators. I for one prefer a forum where people debate ideas, not simply attack someone whom they disagree with.