Clear Channel Dumps Howard Stern After Proposed Fine

[MarkCollette]

First off, sorry for not responding in a timely manner. I've been busy with final exams.

Yes they fine him, so he is not on the radio anymore, but he can be elsewhere. Radio isn't the only option.

You aren't allowed to listen to him on the radio, you can listen to him elsewhere?

You are quite right, that he could switch to a different medium. But I can gurantee you that there is no other medium with comparable penetration rates as radio, in Noth America. So, while people like you and I could switch mediums, I doubt that everyone could, and thus those people's choices are being infringed.

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.

Interesting how you perceive that radio is intended for a broad audience, while other niche mediums are intended only for narrow groups of audiences.

If every car manufacturer started installing receivers for some other medium, and there was a tidal shift from radio over to this new medium (like how people moved from AM radio to FM radio), and radio was only niche, then would your position change, and would you then say that "indecent" speach should not be allowed on the new medium during the day, and that indecent speach should move to niche mediums, like radio? I could understand that position, because then you're saying that whatever medium is the most accessible to people, should be the most regulated. I'd disagree, but at least I'd understand, because the alternative sounds like a stange and undue reverence for radio.

Which leads us to the mediums versus channels debate. I will start by agreeing with your principle that people should be able to have a place where the standards that they desire will be upheld. I agree that our concept of civilisation rests upon this concept. What I disagree with, is your belief that the granularity in which one can divide these places, is only at the medium boundary, and not the channel boundary. In fact, it sounds ubsurd to me. Right now, I can go into a convenience store, and find magazines for children, and magazines for teenagers and magazines for adults. I've never heard anyone say that all magazines should be decent for children to read, since the magazine medium is so popular, and that any kid getting a slurpee could just start flipping through the magazines, and find a Maxim. It could happen at any time in this convenience store, which is open 24/7. So, why would radio be any different? Should the store owners hide the swimsuit magazines during certain hours of the day?

Why are there all these regulations against open content on radio and television, which do not exist for print media? Is that not an arbitrary standard?

Clearly, the medium is irrelevant. Each medium should have its subdivisions, to cater to the varying needs of the populace.

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.

Hahaha... Really, is your radio so old that you can only turn a dial to get from one frequency to another? Is your hand so weak that you cannot turn that dial fast enough to get past the stations you dislike, without being subjected to their programming? And why do you have a double standard where we all have to get satellite and this XM radio thing, etc., but you don't have to search in google, or do a little research to find what stations you like? Or buy a radio where you can have your presets? Should we all lay down our freedoms for your laziness and/or incompetence?

There is simply no way that all of our choices should be abridged so that you can be spared the theoretical possibility of accidentally or incompetently listening to something inappropriate.

And please spare me the example your posted like 5 times about travelling to another city. My research response handles that as well.

And no, as everyone here has already explained to you, about the extent of your rights, they do not include having the "right to not have to worry about hearing that sort of stuff on the radio." That is simply not true. Don't confuse what you'd want with what you have a right to.

 

[MarkCollette]

Sorry it's taken a while to respond, I've been busy with finals.

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.

Yes, that would be harassment. With radio, one flick of the wrist removes any annoyance, whereas in the real world, some stalker is not so easy.

Also, if you are selling those papers and don't have a liscense to do business, you can be fined or perhaps worse.

Yes, but a business license is intended for tax income reasons, and to reduce fraud from fly-by-night operations. When municipalities attempt to control business licenses for censorship purposes, they usually find themselves in a lawsuit.

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.

Correct, one is tresspassing if they are not invited in. I would suggest that turning on your radio, and then selecting and leaving your channel on a station, would constitute an invitation.

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.

All of those restrictions on freedom are intended to keep one entity from infringing on another's freedoms. That is where freedom should natually end, when it infringes another's freedom. It should not be arbitrary, and it should not be for any lesser of a reason.