Sorry for the misunderstanding. I missed your post while scrolling through the effluvia.
No, it doesn’t, but that is his resume. But being a lawyer does give you an insight into what the law is.And, while he’s appointed, Congress is elected, and it’s Congress that forbids obscene and indecent programming.
But what’s your solution? Lets say you’re FCC Chairman, and you’re so persuasive that the other Commissioners will always vote the way you want. How do you figure out what’s obscene or indecent “with the majority interest in mind”?
I don’t know, since I don’t feel I’m qualified. All I know is that in the past year, we have been REGRESSING instead of PROGRESSING. I will NEVER understand how violence can be UNLIMITED on television but the sight of a naked breast (clinical or no) is the downfall of civilization.
I also can’t believe fart or poop jokes are OBSCENE or INDECENT or worth a THREE MILLION DOLLAR FINE.
Look, I can’t give you a list of what IS or ISN’T obscene (although it would probably include criminal acts, physical abuse and or non consent), but i know that three years ago, radio jocks were less limited than they are now.
I also know that television and radio in Europe are fifty times less restricted and somehow they manage to avoid the wrath of God.
>All I know is that in the past year, we have been REGRESSING instead of PROGRESSING.
In your mind.
By the way, you do realize that radio folks stay on/off the air depending on how many people listen, doncha? People “vote” for their worldview by listening. Is there any proof that the libs (liberals/libertarians) are getting the boot for their viewpoints?
[QUOTE=athelas
By the way, you do realize that radio folks stay on/off the air depending on how many people listen, doncha? People “vote” for their worldview by listening. Is there any proof that the libs (liberals/libertarians) are getting the boot for their viewpoints?[/QUOTE]
Um, what the hell are you talking about? The people HAVE voted their world view. Howard Stern is without a doubt one of the highest rated talk show hosts in the country, and still he was pulled from SIX Clear Channel Stations in one day. The people’s “vote” didn’t count in that regard. It wasn’t a firing based on ratings dips, it was based on differing opinions.
Chances are, the FCC’s coming down on him (based on, as far as I know, nonpartisan standards) made him a liability. No evidence that either the FCC or Clear Channel censored him based on his views.
And that liability is exactly how the FCC is ‘cleaning up the airwaves’. Very few stations or personalities can afford to be fined $3,000,000 a DAY for talking about poop or letting a “fuck” slip through the censors (keep in mind it only takes ONE solid complaint to accrue the fine), so instead of fighting the fines (which you can’t anyway, you either pay or get fired, no court, no jury, no appeal), Clear Channel and other Stations just edit every show to hell just to be on the safe side. Soon there will be no one left, because no one’s willing to risk their livelihood to fight this bullshit. Never mind that the fines Stern got last week were for something that happened THREE YEARS AGO. So now we have to worry about what we said in the PAST.
If you don’t think Howard Stern was taken off the air for his opinions or beliefs, you’re on another planet.
First of all, for the record, Infinity Broadcasting was fined $27,500. Stern himself wasn’t fined anything. Secondly, Infinity can appeal the fine. What was issued is a Notice of Apparent Liability, not a final decision. Thirdly, the two Commissioners who supported the strongest penalty against Infinity, license revocation, are Michael Copps and Johnathan Adelstein, both of whom are Democrats. Copps said, in part of his partial dissent from the decision:
and Adelstein said (bolding mine):
Apology accepted.
As I’ve said before, I want to like you, Doors, because I think you’ve got potential. But you seem to get a chubby out of dogging me and trying to play “gotcha” games, for reasons I can’t fathom. Wouldn’t your time be better spent with MsRobyn instead of me? (I can guarantee she’s easier on the eyes than I am 
).
Yeah, well, I admit I don’t keep up with Mike Savage’s career.
I understand that the companies involved have a legal right to do what they did; I just think that, from a moral standpoint, it’s indefensible, especially if one is insisting on conducting business in a manner consistent with an open and democratic society. The only proper response to hate speech is equal time from the other side, and “freedom of speech” is meaningless if we embrace it only for stuff we like to hear.
Don’t look at me; I was just wandering down the street, when someone grabbed me from behind, tied me to a chair, and started showing videos of supermodels doing a–
Oh, wait, wrong fantasy. Nevermind. 
Anyway, to get back to the original rant, I think the FCC fell off the rails when they voted to allow further media consolidation in major markets a few months back. IMO, that was an admission that they cared little about serving the public interest, and were only interested in doing whatever would make the megacorps happy. And in return, the companies will gladly squelch voices that are saying things which the government doesn’t want to be said. Quid pro quo, and all that.
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
First of all, for the record, Infinity Broadcasting was fined $27,500. Stern himself wasn’t fined anything. Secondly, Infinity can appeal the fine. What was issued is a Notice of Apparent Liability, not a final decision. Thirdly, the two Commissioners who supported the strongest penalty against Infinity, license revocation, are Michael Copps and Johnathan Adelstein, both of whom are Democrats. Copps said, in part of his partial dissent from the decision:
[QUOTE]
-
I understand what Stern was fined. The bill that was voted on, voted on a MAXIMUM FINE of $3,000,000 PER day. That means, if they feel like it, and don’t like what you’re saying, they can fine you $3,000,000 for that DAY. Then if you do something they don’t like the next day, they can fine you another $3,000,000. The fines CAN Apply to individuals, which includes the guy doing traffic in peoria, and the overnight guy in Bangor Maine who forgets to hit the beep.
-
I don’t care if those who voted for the bill are Presidents of The Jarbaby Fan Club, it’s wrong. I’m not blaming this solely on Republicans, at all.
-
Once fines are issued…FINES, not Notices of Liablity, they are unappealable.
Measured by the universally-shared jarbabyj standards.
Yes, like the way they always show Braveheart and Resevoir Dogs without editing…
Just a guess … maybe God has nothing to do with it and it’s simply because they have different standards in their communities?
Possibly true. The one I’m on is the third planet from Sol. If you’re talking about his political opinions or beliefs, you may live elsewhere. Heard from a host in the last couple of weeks on one of the Clear Channel stations which dumped Stern (WTKS Orlando):
“These people that oppose Gay Marriage are a bunch of hate-filled, homophobic, fundamentalist Christian idiots who don’t know anything.”
“Bush has lied to us repeatedly about everything.”
“If people can’t see that Bush has got to go … well, I just can’t help you. You don’t simply know what you’re talking about.”
Stern was the most politically conservative of the three daytime shows on there.
On second thought: those shouldn’t be in quotes. They are very close, but not verbatim.
Watch NYPD Blue much? The Shield? 24? Don’t tell me there’s not excessive violence on television. The History Channel had a show on the HISTORY OF PUNISHMENT last week.
No shit. Perhaps you’re not aware that some of the Senators who presented this bill are part of a Christian Organization named THE FELLOWSHIP with a distinctly fundamentalist agenda. God SHOULDN’T have anything to do with it. That is precisely my point. I’d like someone to point out how nudity and swear words on television in Europe has adversely affected their children or community standards.
Of course. STERN IS BEING SINGLED OUT AS AN EXAMPLE. Oprah Winfrey talked about the term “Salad Tossing” in reference to prisoners on her show last week. Did she get fined? Censored? Nope.
They don’t like Stern, so they took him off the air. Not do to ratings or any distinct law violation or any consistent policy, they don’t like him.
Stern, for his part, claims that no, they can’t. The last time they tried to do that, the paperwork for the stations’ requests to be able to buy and sell (which had to be approved by Congress) mysteriously ground to a crawl, seriously hampering their ability to do business and costing them tons of cash beyond mere fines.
I hope people actually saw my previous response which hopefully took things in a less combative, conspiratorial tone, when pausing from clawing each other’s eyes out.
Did he say Congress or the FCC? I can’t think of any station assignments that are dealt with by Congress…it’s the FCC doing it. And, I deal with the FCC almost every day…trust me, it doesn’t take a conspiracy to make the FCC sit on applications. The FCC’s application processing time is just slow as hell. A few years ago, we represented a school bus company that applied for a new license, and it took a year for the application to be granted.
However, I’m not sure exactly which assignment application of Infinity’s he’s talking about. Is it the Clear Channel sale in 2000?
Excessive says you. Why are your values binding on the rest of us? I thought the History Channel thing a touch strong for 8 pm, but I personally wasn’t bothered. For that matter, more nudity and swearing wouldn’t bother me personally either. But it’s not about me; it’s about the majority of the population, which includes a hell of a lot of six-year olds and grannies and yes, sorry to tell you, religious people.
These are your neighbors. Deal with it.
Their standards? Probably not. But their standards are irrelvant. Not better or worse, just different, and irrelevant.
Then it’s not fucking working, is it? The personalities on the station are marginally more cautious with profanity and racial humor, but they are markedly more anti-gov/anti-Bush.
Who is “they?”
Clear Channel? I’ve already explained that they are not replacing him with the John Ashcroft Gospel Hour. The time is being picked up by a show that does live broadcasts from a porno superstore. The evening show has women test-drive vibrators on the air.
Bush? Oh, yeah, this was a real subtle way of silencing their strongest and most eloquent critic. :rolleyes:
Or is it just “them?”
My point, overall, Furt, if you’d put away your boxing gloves for a minute, is that my standards SHOULDN’T extend to everyone, nor should Michael Powell’s, nor should George Bush’s, nor should the Religious Right. Just like someone said earlier, the audience is the voting power. If Howard Stern wasn’t appealing to a large number of people (millions) he would be off the air, because his ratings would drop.
To take him off the air because your religious, moral or political views don’t mesh with his is irresponsible ownership of a broad cast monopoly.
I can’t believe that your response to curtailing of freedoms is “deal with it”
I’m not boxing, jarbabyj, I’m just stunned to see this sort of facile “free speech” argument being put forth by a respected poster. I expect this sort of thinking from a college freshman.
I daresay that I could get pretty good ratings showing hardcore porn on broadcast TV in the afterschool hours. I daresay that in some localities a show with the recurring sketch “I likes ta Lynch Nigras” might attract a niche audience. Under your logic, both of these shows should be allowed to air, and I find that absurd.
Howard Stern has not lost any of his freedoms. None. Zero.
His boss demoted him because he was saying things that were 1) embarassing the company, and 2) offending many people, the the point where the people, through thier government, issued fines.
I don’t think there should be unlimited sex and violence on television and I already said that those things involving criminal acts (such as Lynchings) should be expressly forbidden. I recognize the barriers that are set up with the ‘seven dirty words’ and safe harbor and all of that. However, I don’t think One little old Lady in Nebraska who accidentally tunes into Howard Stern while looking for the Easy LIstening station should dictate what I can and can’t hear. Nor should a small, appointed conservative committee in the government.
So what do you consider his ability to talk about blow jobs three years ago not being acceptable now? He was free to do it before, now he is not, at a possible $3,000,000 price tag
The current legislation makes it possible for ONE letter from ONE person registering a complaint can incurr a fine. Not many…ONE.
There should be rules, but it’s frightening that, in my mind, our rules against creativity and entertainment are growing MORE stringent rather than LESS.
So who should ruin the FCC? An elected official? The “Vote out Smith, he allowed boobies” crowd will win every time. Bureaucrats? They’re likely to be even more conservative, and less responsive to the people. An appointed official is going to reflect the general tenor of the country without being as directly subjected to pressure as an elected official. If Kerry wins, it’ll be a small liberal committee.
He is absolutely free to discuss BJs all he wants, he simply has no right to broadcast over the air. That is a privelege his employer gave him, and one he repeatedly abused over many years. Clear Channel wants ratings, but they also care about the long-term perception of their brand and their stations. Given the national mood, in which the superbowl thing was the last straw for many people, the FCC said "you guys gotta dial it back a bit, we’re getting a lot of crap. " Clear Channel agreed and decided that, as a brand, they agreed and started with Stern.
And if that ever actually happens, I’ll agree. The issue at hand is Howard Stern.
If we have rules against “creativity and entertainment” its news to me. But I notice that you seem to assume that all obscenity laws must ease over time, like its some fixed law of the universe or soemthing. Or perhaps you just want us to be “progressing” toward some standard; presumably yours. What’s wrong with the way things are now – Heck, why should we ignore the people who think TV has been a moral disaster ever since “Soap” was on the air, and want to go back?
Which of course is the bottom line. For better or worse, our standards are loosening nearly every single year. Compare things right now to where they are two, five, ten, twenty years ago.
There are massive long-term trends that result nearly every single year in more nudity, profanity and violence. Yet when there is a temporary setback in this trend, people scream like we’re being sent back to Mike and Carol Brady sleeping in twin beds. I don’t get it.