Howard Stern...Maybe he's right....

[RickM]

Maybe he's right when he says I want to see him go. I used to be a fan. In fact going to two on-the-air studio parties.
However, I'm just tired of his repetitive Jerry Springer show format and tactics...not at all cutting edge/fresh humor as it was early on.

And now a whining cry......

http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=20252

[lendaddy]

Never cared for him, too juvinile. I think he's donning a tinfoil hat with this Bush is out to get me stuff. Whatever, I think his "flavor" should be availible on a subscription basis only. A 12 year old doesn't need to catch any of his BS while surfing the channels. The argument that nothing has changed and it's the same stuff he's done for a decade is pointless too. Just cause it took a while to clean things up doesn't mean it shouldn't be.

[Ronbo]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Just cause it took a while to clean things up doesn't mean it shouldn't be.

Who decides what needs to be "cleaned", and how "clean" it needs to be?

[vash]

what? this is just the beginning. how can the FCC impose fines on anyone without the courts? there is only one law in the books that clearly states which seven words cannot be said on the air. one law. the FCC changes, the "rules" and all must adjust or face fines? i dont mind the fines, but you should have to go to court to get them. the FCC is not a law enforcement agency! 10 years ago, HS was fined 1.7 mil. no problem, his station tried to get a court to decide if in fact anything indecent was said. the FCC buried any paperwork needed for the radio station to do business. this is like us trying to sue our landlord, and he shuts off our sewer and water. bully tactics. Viacom had to back down and pay the fine. i only like some of his stuff, i hate his prank calls stuff and his racist stuff. i just switch the radio station and come back later. my american right. and i dont condem him because some people like to hear the racist stuff. makes me scared, that government can determine indecency. I love bush's reason for suggesting an admendment to prevent gay marriage, "because he just know it isnt right" ???? he should outlaw divorce then. oh marriage is for making babies??? outlaw older couple marriages then.!

i respect both of you, and admire that you just turned your radio off after figuring it isnt for you. i think rush L is crap, but i dont want him off the air, i just dont listen.

cliff

[Z-man]

Ok, Bush is a conservative president, and he probably has some influence over the current FCC 'witch hunt' if you want to call it that.

HOWEVER: I really can't understand how Howard Stern is blaming the president for all the trouble he's getting into. He (Stern) decided to keep pushing the line of what can be aired on PUBLIC radios. He went over the line, and now those that draw the line are getting after him.

Howard Stern has only himself to blame for his consequences.

The fact that his show is on in the morning, when non-adult listeners have access to his VERY adult programming is a big problem for me.
I think if his show would air after 9:00pm or 10:00pm, it wouldn't have been as much of a problem.

BTW: I have never heard Mr. Stern say, "Ok, I've push too far. I'll back it down." Life is full of compromises: seems Howard Stern doesn't believe in compromises. Well, if he doesn't compromise his side of the argument, how can he expect the other side to do so?

unfixed: while Howard Stern tries to adhere to the 'letter of the law' (regarding the 7 words that can't be said on air), it's the CONTENT of his programming that I have a problem with! My understanding is that it is very sexual and vulgar and graphic in nature: something inappropriate for the time frame it is on!

Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now,
-Z-man.

[vash]

that is my point, if he went over the line, let a court decide what the line is. not the FCC. i dont want to pay the CHP officer my fine directly, i want the chance to fight it. I dont want the cop to become allmighty! if the court decide HS is a prick that needs to be off the air, so be it, no complaining from me.. i will just pick him up on XM radio, and still switch off on the prank calls and racist BS. Zman, i like it when you get on a soapbox

wait Zman i just reread your last part of the post, you dont listen to the show? so you only "heard" that the show is vulgar?

[lendaddy]

" makes me scared, that government can determine indecency."

Well, someone has too. These are public airwaves, any 12 year old can listen on the way to school. I mean, the "thats just wrong" segment he does where fathers strip their daughters in front of his crew! WTF is that? How can you possibly say that is fit for children? Put him on cable or Sat radio and I would have no problem. Would you be all for HC porn on network TV in the morning? You simply cannot argue against drawing lines.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Cliff -
Many agencies can fine you w/o having to get a court order; it's the *typical* scenario, not the exception. And they do enforce laws (most often in the form of regulations they've issued pursuant to authority granted to them by laws) just like the SEC, FDA, FTC, FAA, etc.

As for the seven infamous words, well I don't know for a fact or not if they're the subject or a statute, but you can be thoroughly indecent w/o using those words (imagine relating a graphic story about rape or sodomy on the air w/o using those seven words -- it'd still be indecent, which is one of the standards). The Supreme Court still has the infamous "I'll know it when I see it" standard for pornography, which is very subjective (or did a few years ago, which was the last time I studied Con Law) so if they can't articulate a black-and-white threshold, there has to be room for interpretation. Personally, I think a black-and-white threshold is a bad idea.

Howard is tiresome at this point -- but you know what, if he doesn't want to be fined, he can alter his delivery a bit. If he's pushed off the air it's b/c he knowingly, wilfully violated the standards that he'd time and again been warned not to violate. If there are no teeth to the threats, who would *ever* heed the regulations? Personally, I don't think he's "going off the air." He's showboating w/ Chicken Little prognostications; he may be fined, but not shut down. Nobody on either side of the aisle has leapt to Howard's defense -- not even the most irrational Bush-haters who blame him for flat soda, pollen, stubbed toes and their bedwetting.

I see the situation differently than Cliff -- I'm concerned more with the "creeping" nature of the violations of broadcasting decency standards (most recently Janet Jackson). If the FCC or other responsible agency doesn't jump all over those incidents, then the envelope has been pushed a little farther. Next time, to get the requisite attention from such a stunt, someone will have to be even more outrageous, further pushing the envelope. At any point on this slide, there will be a chorus of people decrying the [fascists/conservative lobby/Christian Coalition -- insert your own label] for "making such a big deal about it" -- but if the responsible agencies don't stop the buck somewhere, who's going to?

Howard wanted all the attention and spectacle for being a bad boy who broke all the rules; he knew what he was doing, and did it deliberately, over and over again. His show should not be spiked (I'm not a fan), but he's got to pay the Piper for his actions.

JP

[vash]

Originally posted by lendaddy
" makes me scared, that government can determine indecency."

Well, someone has too. These are public airwaves, any 12 year old can listen on the way to school. I mean, the "thats just wrong" segment he does where fathers strip their daughters in front of his crew! WTF is that? How can you possibly say that is fit for children? Put him on cable or Sat radio and I would have no problem. Would you be all for HC porn on network TV in the morning? You simply cannot argue against drawing lines.

i think that someone should be parents.

[911Rob]

I don't care what the gov't says is OK.
I don't want my kids listening to that crap!
and I don't want my kids learning "how to" be a homosexual.
Even if the gov't says its OK.

As far as I'm concerned, the gov't is the highest level of crime that we have in the world. Crooks, just a bunch of greedy crooks.

[lendaddy]

"i think that someone should be parents."

So should we legalize cigaretts and booze for sale to all ages because the "parents" should be able to keep their own children from using it? How about slae of porn to 8 year olds? Should that be legal too? Parents need to vote for politicians that have family interests in mind as they cannot be with them all the time.

[B D]

went over the line

What line did he just cross? He has been outragous for a long time.

It's time for parnets to be parents. Don't change my world, since you can't control your kids. In the morning hours kids wake up at home, drive with parents to school or take the bus and then sit in a classroom. So if they hear Howard it only could be the parents fault.

[vash]

when i grew up, my mother absolutely insisted on the family eating together. we would discuss things, like how our day went and she would lecture us. ALOT. (i was spanked too, when i did things drastically wrong). cigarettes and booze is a no brainer. it is NOT legal for minors to get this stuff. the line is perfectly clear, the topic never even came up at the dinner table. didnt need to, it was against the law. but she did lecture us not to cuss and stuff like that. the cussing lecture didnt effing stick! . but my parents did instill in us what they thought was right and wrong. from what i can see, a bunch of politician mixing church and state is not a good thing. i know perfectly well what my level of indecency is, hearing the word penis, or boob, doesnt bother me. for the record, when i was in sixth grade, porn and booze was so available to me, it was the "fireside" chats with my parents during dinner that made me walk away. THEN. i'll will try to do the same if i am fortuanate to have some kids. tough love.

[Z-man]

Originally posted by unfixed
wait Zman i just reread your last part of the post, you dont listen to the show? so you only "heard" that the show is vulgar?

unfixed: after all the hoopla came out about him a couple of weeks ago, I decided to listen to his show one morning. And I've flipped passed his show in E! at night a few times, so while I may not know every detail of his show, I know that what he airs in the morning is inapproriate due to the fact that: a. it's on public airways, and b. it is a time when under-age children have EASY access to his show.

The show I listened to involved a contest where two women had to do rather vulgar & sexually rude things in order to plug what they do. One of the woman ran some kinda web-cam sex house. I believe the other woman was a stripper. The show was obscene, inappropriate for public airwaves, and definately inappropriate for the time slot!

Look, I don't care what Howard Stern does on his show provided that it's done at the appropriate time and place.

B D
What line did he just cross? He has been outragous for a long time.

Yes, he has been outrageous for a long time: this whole suspension and fining has been a long time coming. I am unsure why they (the FCC et al) haven't done anything sooner, but I suppose that in light of the whole Janet Jackson Boob incident, they felt it was best to strike while the iron is hot!

Of course, that's just my speculation,
-Zoltan.

[lendaddy]

"a bunch of politician mixing church and state is not a good thing."

what does that have to do with this discussion?

[lendaddy]

As you will read below, it's not that these guys are doing anything new, it's that the laws are finally being enforced. If you want to run these shows, do so on a non FCC controlled medium. Thats all I am saying.


Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. To be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test: (1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. See Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

[B D]

"a bunch of politician mixing church and state is not a good thing."

what does that have to do with this discussion?

Howard Stern claims he is getting pushed off the air by Bush and his supporters, and is asking citizens to not vote for Bush since he is in bed with the Religious Right.

Problem is people vote for politicians with family values and most family values are actually religious beliefs. For example gay marriage.

[B D]

Get over it people, lets move forward in this world! Are you people saying you want the Goverment to have more control over our airwaves? Maybe we can ask China to help us set up a program to monitor TV and radio, and punish those they don't agree with.

[RickM]

I don't think this is more control. It's enforcing what's out there.

Anyway, as I see it Howard is resorting to his old and tired attention getting gimmicks. So now instead of admitting he's becoming a has been he's "pushing the envelope"...again.....man, that's talent.

[lendaddy]

"and punish those they don't agree with"

What do you mean agree with? How can you agree or disagree with throwing balogna at a womans bare ass? Or his anal ring toss game? It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing it's a matter of the law. Thats all, just the law, no big conspiracy.