# Freedom of Speach under attack. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 6, 2004, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speach-under-attack/232891 "2004-03-06T21:17:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![acaveman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@acaveman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/acaveman)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speach-under-attack/232891/1 "2004-03-06T21:17:46Z")
Stern a once bush supporter has turned against him. Clear Channel is a huge Bush contributer. > [@](#): > > Howard Stern finally turns on Bush, gets silenced in return > Posted by Jon on Thursday Feb 26, 2004 at 8:12 PM Pacific Time > Disclosure: I am a diehard Howard Stern fan. I generally listen to the entire show, daily, and have done so for about 14 years. > > In late 2002 and during much of 2003, Stern was so ridiculously pro-Bush and pro-Iraq War, I almost stopped listening. Almost. > > And so it was, then, that I nearly wept with joy on Monday morning when Stern, upon returning from a weeklong vacation, announced: “Over vacation, I read Al Franken’s [“Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them”]; it’s great. He is phenomenal.” > > Stern’s impromptu ass-kissing session occurred despite the fact that Franken takes a shot at Stern at the very beginning of the book. > > “The first page, he insults me,” Stern said. “He talks about how Ann Coulter and I are McCarthy-ites. It was just really insulting. And I just said, ‘You know, I can get past this, if Al doesn’t like me.’ I’m not even sure why I’m like McCarthy, but, evidently, I am, according to Al. But you know what? If Al says it, it must be true, because I love the book, and he seems to be right on about everything.” > > And then Stern said the words that made my day: “If you read this book, you will never vote for George W. Bush. … I think this guy is a religious fanatic and a Jesus freak, and he is just hell bent on getting some sort of bizzaro agenda through–like a country-club agenda–so that his father will finally be proud of him. … I don’t know much about Kerry, but I think I’m one of those ‘Anybody but Bush’ guys now. I don’t think G.W. is going to win. What do you think about that?” > > Stern admitted that his change of heart was, in part, brought on because of the FCC crackdown that began after Janet Jackson exposed her breast on television during the Super Bowl Half-Time Show. > > On recent shows, Stern had been airing audiotape of the post-breast Congressional hearings, during which Congresswoman Heather Wilson (R-New Mexico), in a ridiculously over-the-top, dramatic performance, lectured Mel Karmazin–CEO of Viacom, the company for which Stern works–about the “nasty” half-time show and how it severely affected her 4th-grade son. Stern subsequently exposed Wilson’s poor voting record on gun control and a myriad of other issues, as well as the enormous amounts of money she has accepted from Enron, defense contractors and other special-interest groups, and suggested that perhaps Wilson is more of a threat to child welfare than is the media. > > So it’s no surprise, then, that against this backdrop, media conglomerate Clear Channel–a Texas-based organization with ties to Bush–announced on Wednesday (2/25) that it had yanked Stern from its radio stations in Ft. Lauderdale and Orlando, FL; Rochester, NY; San Diego, CA; Pittsburgh, PA; and Louisville, KY. (It’s worth noting that two of those five states–most notably Florida–are still considered “swing states” in the upcoming election.) > > Coincidence? Not likely. Stern even hinted during his show on Thursday that some of the behind-the-scenes action that led to his muzzling may have included communications that Wilson–or someone connected to her–had initiated with someone in a position to yank Stern’s chain. > > “This regime–and I will now call it a regime–has gotten absolutely bizarre. Between Aschroft and Cheney … and their puppet Bush, and Powell and his son [FCC chairman Michael Powell] … I mean, this has gone berserk. I mean, I’ll be off the air, and I won’t be able to talk to you about it anymore, but, listen, it’s bad. This is the most unbelievable thing, what’s going on, where people are being thrown off the air without a trial.” > > Stern seemed intent on making the most of however much time he has left to broadcast, telling his listeners: “These fascist, right-wing a-holes are getting so much freaking power, you gotta take back the country. [Those are] my last words to you. I don’t know how many more days I have on the air.” Bush directly?.. not alot. but what he is doing to circumvent the people that he and his cabnet see as “non moral”… a ton. you realize the fine for indecency from the fcc rose from $2,750 to $275,500??? a single fine is enough to run a corporate network (abc, cbs, etc) damn near out of business now. remember… thats charged per affiliate. the superbowl would have been in excess of billions of dollars. live tv is about to become a thing of the past. Let’s look at the FCC for a momment, shall we? The FCC has rules prohibiting indecent, offensive, obscene, or violent speech on public airwaves. However, prior to last year there was absolutely no definition for what was indecent, offensive, obscene or violent. After Bono said “\*\*\*\*” on live TV last year they updated their rules to include the 7 words George Carlin came up with years ago, but they have never put into law exactly what is considered indecent, offensive, obscene or violent speech that they do not allow. The closest they come is to say that to be considered obscene the average person must consider it to be obscene. Are we talking an average person in Utah, or Hollyood? What is indecent to you may not be indecent to me, or offensive, or obscene or violent. > [@](#): > > [http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html](http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html)] > It’s Against the Law > > ``` > It is a violation of federal law to broadcast obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to broadcast indecent programming during certain hours. Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the responsibility for administratively enforcing the law that governs these types of broadcasts. The Commission may revoke a station license, impose a monetary forfeiture, or issue a warning, for the broadcast of obscene or indecent material. > Obscene Broadcasts Are Prohibited at All Times > > 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: > > * > > An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; > * > > The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and > * > > The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. > > Indecent Broadcast Restrictions > > The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as "language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities." Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory references that do not rise to the level of obscenity. As such, the courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. > > Consistent with a federal statute and federal court decisions interpreting the indecency statute, the Commission adopted a rule pursuant to which broadcasts -- both on television and radio -- that fit within the indecency definition and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are subject to indecency enforcement action. > > ``` How the hell do you expect anyone to conform to that? Personally I find a lot of the things Rush says to be patently offensive, and I believe an average person would as well. I specifically remember Rush talking about blowjobs, cigars and the like during the Clinton-Lewinksi scandal - So should we kick him off the air, fine the EIB network and revoke the licenses of Clear Channel? What happens if Kerry wins in November and appoints someone to the FCC that finds Rush’s or Hannity’s speach to be obscene, violent, or lacking “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value”? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speach-under-attack/232891/2 "2004-03-06T21:40:45Z")
When will people ever learn\> The purpose of law is not to protect citizens, but government. ---
**Author:** ![acaveman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@acaveman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/acaveman)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2004, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedom-of-speach-under-attack/232891/3 "2004-03-06T22:31:31Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > When will people ever learn\> The purpose of law is not to protect citizens, but government. Thats about the size of it. The law is created by the gov. at hand, and does his bidding. Sad.