OT - HOWARD STERN SILENCED

[Gabe]

The Howard Stern radio show has been pulled of the air in every market by the suits at Viacom due to the actions of the FCC. Stern will probably be back on the air on the XM band within a few months.

[B a r r y]

Since I get Howard on a locally owned, independent station, WCCC, I'm wondering if this is some sort of April Fool's joke.

Barry

[Doug Miller]

I hope not.

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter, send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com

[BUB 209]

Interesting OT - What's happening in that arena made me think. He's got a right to present his shtik, but if you want it, you should have to seek it out. You shouldn't have to listen to it when you're walking into some retail store or next to somebody at a stoplight with kids in your car.

[searcher1]

Hold on now, "but if you

shouldn't have to listen to it at some stoplight. Now you want people to roll up thier windows when approaching another stopped vehicle? I personally do not listen to Howard, But back in the day I did listen to Greaseman on DC 101. I liked him then and to this day I remember some of his bits. We should all be able to speak our mind, Hmmm there should be a law about that, people should be allowed to say what they feel! I think it's the first amendment! I also have kids and I don't want him sitting around watching a foul mouthed movie at 2 years old. So I monitor what he watches. Yes I even filter out the cartoons that I think is not appropriate. But see that my choice and I HAVE THAT CHOICE, if I want to watch cartoon figures put guns to thier head and pull the trigger then I can Bu t I am not going to let my son watch it. I make the decisons for me not let some old battleaxe do it.

Searcher 1

[Jerry Gilreath]

GOOD!!!

[mttt]

If this is true - I'm celebrating...

[jo4hn]

[Bruce]

This has absolutely *nothing* to do with the First Amendment. A company deciding that their customers don't like what their DJ is doing and pulling the plug is not censorship. It's called good business. If Howard wants to get his message out, (heh, heh, yeah, he's freakin' brilliant!) he can buy his own string of radio stations. Why should Clear Channel feel obligated to air his garbage? If you say that they are just buckling under pressure from the FCC, I believe the FCC is just reacting to public complaints. Enough people have complained about his and other peoples over-the-airwaves crap so they're stepping up. But mostly, I think that Clear Channel is just practicing what they believe to be good business. Speaking of offensive words coming from cars, I have 5 and

8 year old kids. It sucks when a car pulls up next to us at a light with his/her megawatt stereo blasting the nastiest gangsta rap so loud that no rolled up windows will stop the sound... "Daddy? What's a Mutha F**ka?" The law stops me from blowing his worthless head off but it doesn't stop him from polluting my kids' heads with garbage. Well, there are some never-enforced noise laws but that doesn't stop them. Yeah, that's a great example of freedom of speech.

Bruce Redding, Ca.

people to

listen to

around

[B a r r y]

You do.

Agreed, and that should be taken up with the store's management, not the FCC. Any retailer that has Howard on in the store is a bit lacking in the brains department, wouldn't you think?

Also agreed, along with music. In fact I was once sitting next to a vehicle at a red light with NPR's Saturday Afternoon OPERA cranked to the hilt! It was funny, but still annoying. Some of the localities in my area have "Boom Box" laws restricting car stereo volume. So far, it's just one more law that goes unenforced, right along with speed limits, use of dealer plates, motor vehicle exhaust noise laws, etc...

Barry

[B a r r y]

They still are, they only took him off in six markets. He's still on some Clear Channel stations.

Let's also remember that the show is exactly what it always was, and Clear Channel knew exactly what they were buying from the get-go. They bought it because people listen, which pays in the radio biz.

FWIW, Clear Channel also owns our local Gangsta' Rap station.

Barry

[Hitch]

Well, yes and no.

You're right on the money there. Except that for ten years it has been good business to have Howard spew his sophomoric brand of comedy. All of a sudden, he's obscene? I think the FCC fines had more to do with the "business" decision that any concern for the tender ears of their customers.

They shouldn't.

This is where the First Amendment is being violated. The FCC is knuckling uder to a small group of complainers and is levying fines to get some speech restricted. I am hopeful (but not holding my breath) that the broadcasters, or more likely, the dj's (since the bulk of the fines are aimed at them) will take these new restrictions to court and win back some sensibility.

[Secret Squirrel]

"Bruce" wrote in news:106oibdq6uh4134 @corp.supernews.com:

It's called good business if his ratings or his ability to sel adertising are in question. Stern's show is consistantly the highest rated on virtually every station it airs on. So if I understand you correctly, ditching a highly rated and very profitable show for one less so is a good business decision?

If Howard wants to get his message out,

Because they have an obligation to their shareholders as well as most likely a contract with either Stern or his syndication company.

If you say that they are just buckling under

Perhaps, but the FCC does not have the authority to determine what is or is not indecent. That is an issue for the courts. The FCC is supposed to deal with licensing and technical issues only.

Enough people have complained about his

Once again.. good business.. How do you feel about investing in companies who could clearly be more profitable, but are not simply because of management decisions?

Actually it does. Every municipality has a noise ordinance. It is seldom enforced, but there are already laws on the books to handle this situation.

Well, there are some never-enforced

[Secret Squirrel]

"mttt" wrote in news:50qtj1-kf6.ln1 @armada.sprintco.bbn.net:

It was an April fools gag.. And a pretty funny one at that

[mel]

you wrote-

This is where the First Amendment is being violated. The FCC is knuckling uder to a small group of complainers and is levying fines to get some speech restricted. I am hopeful (but not holding my breath) that the broadcasters, or more likely, the dj's (since the bulk of the fines are aimed at them) will take these new restrictions to court and win back some sensibility

(Cut and pasted from my other post under different thread)

Let's check the verbiage shall we?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

This amendment is the one we get "freedom of religion", "separation of church and state", "freedom of speech", "freedom of the press", "the right to assemble" and "the right to petition". Agreed?

The same amendment you claim gives constitutionally protected speech also gives the right to petition the government to redress (or remedy) grievances. That is what is happening. The FCC, which by the way isn't congress and can enact any legislation it chooses until a suit is filed and the supreme court rules either for or against, is reacting to the petitions of those who have exercised their right to petition. You have the right to petition against this and if you are successfully able to get enough support for your cause can in fact determine the outcome without any fear from the government restricting your ability to do so.

So not only is the 1st amendment not being violated but it is essentially being used exactly as it was intended.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Dose he prefer power tools or hand tools?

[B a r r y]

They did a great job, the fake show was very convincing. It snagged Fox News!

Another station, WPLR in New Haven, had "man on the street" reporters interviewing motorists and truck drivers about Connecticut's "No smoking in your car" law that they said took effect today. Of course, there is no such law, at least not yet.

Some of the interviews were absolute classics.

Barry

[searcher1]

I think he would prefer HAND tools.....

Some hotties hands that is

[B a r r y]

Power tools are discussed on the show occasionally.

Barry

[John Dykes]

If you are using this as a segue to argue the for\against the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Feel free, but your point is lost on me.

"> Are you so sure it was inadvertent? " Am I sure it was inadvertent? Absolutely! Taking the context of the amendment, as well as the history and circumstances of the writers - ensuring "free speech" of contemporary filth was the farthest from their mind. They wanted folks of future generations to have the Constitutionally protected power to speak, print, and gather against government.

"> Yes." Jesus - ok... If you think the Founding Fathers would condone and protect via "Free Speech" most of what's on the radio, hehe - cripes - You win. I can't argue with that logic.

I'm a pretty basic fellow. Pretty shallow in about every area of life. So, I don't have the wisdom or heady ideals to argue such things... I guess for that reason, it seems pretty cut and dried to me. So some of your stuff is over my head.

"You have your idea of what does and doesn't qualify and so do most others. That is precisely why the First Amendment was written as an absolute."

You say the 1st is an "absolute?" Yet you also argue, "the Supreme Court ruled" on this 30 yrs ago. If something is an absolute, why rule or interpret? Absolute is absolute. Right? Are you saying there should be no question as to "Free Speech?" It's all relative, right?

But again, my point isn't morality. 1st amendment is about anti-government speech, print, etc - or at least in intent.

If you want to add one to allow Howard Stern to say anything he wants - feel free. Honestly, I don't care.

*And as to the "turn off the TV," or "watch your kids" arguments. That's pretty stupid - Yea, we all get the point, and agree - with "Change the channel," but please concede that it isn't that easy. About 3 months ago, I was shopping for WW books - Bill Hylton's router book in fact - tucked behind the WW books - I find an explicit book of erotic, lesbian photography. While it didn't bother me (ex-Navy guy), I wondered "Cripes! What if some kid found this?"

-jbd, Denver