Recommended Posts
I may not like Stern, but he HAS THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEACH, or do we not have constitutional rights anymore??? 
Oh, I almost forgot, that STUPID PATRIOT ACT took them all away from me!
Oh, I almost forgot, that STUPID PATRIOT ACT took them all away from me! How did the patriot act get Stern pulled from the air?
never pull low......unless you are
redrocka 0
And the worst part about this is that its not the government doing it, directly anyway. Pre-emptive self-censorship... This is why it sucks that powell jr decided to let the media conglomorates own a larger percentage of the market a last year. What happens when clear channel owns all of the radio stations...
Sweet Gravity...
Sweet Gravity...
Bill I agree with alot of what you are saying.... But I also agree there comes a point at which it is out of control.
You used the issue of the nudie bar and you are right, however, what if the Nudie bar left its windows open for passers by to see.
They are doing something legal on their property, but unsuspecting people walking by may see something they don't want to.
The same reason why Playboy has a black plasic cover on it when it is shipped in the mail!!!! So as NOT to offend the unintended audience who may see it.
Chris
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
You used the issue of the nudie bar and you are right, however, what if the Nudie bar left its windows open for passers by to see.
They are doing something legal on their property, but unsuspecting people walking by may see something they don't want to.
The same reason why Playboy has a black plasic cover on it when it is shipped in the mail!!!! So as NOT to offend the unintended audience who may see it.
Chris
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
Ok Philly you are right... EXCEPT for the DRUGS.
Sorry, but if you can't see how drugs have a negative affect on society, then you need to get off the drugs for a little while until you understand.
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
Sorry, but if you can't see how drugs have a negative affect on society, then you need to get off the drugs for a little while until you understand.
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
QuoteThis is bullshit what the goverment is doing to us all based on what's "good for you" FUCK that. I'm 36 years old, I pay my taxed (begrudgingly) I don't need some christian, jew, hindu, buddist, muslim, or what ever religion you want to practice telling me what I want to watch, listen too or do.
Two points:
1) The government is not going after listeners. The FCC controls standards set by law for those who use the airwaves.
2) The government did not drop Stern. Clear Channel did. A private decision.
Addendum:
I can see Stern having internet broadcasts. With that he can likely do what he wants.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
redrocka 0
I like stern, but that shit gets old after awhile so I dont listen. I like looking at Hustler, but that shit (awesome how I'm allowed to use that word, isn't it?) gets old after awhile, so I stopped reading it. Free will, ain't it a bitch?
The reason we keep getting the 'lowest common denominators' of our society (in some peoples opinion, not mine) defending OUR constitution is because most of the rest of society is too concerned with seeing someone or something they don't like removed from the popular conciousness. If you take a look at the larger picture you'll see that your freedoms are also limited by actions such as these.
I also say again, the government didn't shut stern down, clear channel made a decision to do so. Was that decision based on constitutional principles? (doubt it) Profit? (maybe) Some individuals religious beliefs...?
Sweet Gravity...
The reason we keep getting the 'lowest common denominators' of our society (in some peoples opinion, not mine) defending OUR constitution is because most of the rest of society is too concerned with seeing someone or something they don't like removed from the popular conciousness. If you take a look at the larger picture you'll see that your freedoms are also limited by actions such as these.
I also say again, the government didn't shut stern down, clear channel made a decision to do so. Was that decision based on constitutional principles? (doubt it) Profit? (maybe) Some individuals religious beliefs...?
Sweet Gravity...
billvon 2,991
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>You used the issue of the nudie bar and you are right, however, what
>if the Nudie bar left its windows open for passers by to see.
If they leave their windows open? Don't look. Or look if you want to, but then don't get mad because you actually saw a nude chick when you looked in the window of a nude bar. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what you will see when you look through the window of a nude bar.
Again, I have the image of this guy going right up to the window and straining his neck to see, saying "Outrage! Nudity! I can't believe I'm being forced to see this!"
We have to take some responsibility for ourselves. Like I said before, you have a lot of rights in this country. You do not have the right to not be offended.
>if the Nudie bar left its windows open for passers by to see.
If they leave their windows open? Don't look. Or look if you want to, but then don't get mad because you actually saw a nude chick when you looked in the window of a nude bar. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what you will see when you look through the window of a nude bar.
Again, I have the image of this guy going right up to the window and straining his neck to see, saying "Outrage! Nudity! I can't believe I'm being forced to see this!"
We have to take some responsibility for ourselves. Like I said before, you have a lot of rights in this country. You do not have the right to not be offended.
Why not? Oh, I see...you'd rather dictate what other people can view rather than be inconvenienced your self.
Sounds like you want to dictate what others should watch. If I don't like Howard Stern I should get rid of my TV? If Clear Channels doesn't want Stern on their payroll it's their right to fire him.
never pull low......unless you are
In all seriousness, I am not into Sensorship. However, there isn't a place for Lude behavior on network TV or radio.
I listened to HS for 5 year( then it just got old), and I thought it was hillarious. However, If flipping through the channels while in the car with my 5yr old daughter I came upon HS without knowing, and only caught 5 seconds of the show..... Should could very easily hear something which I don't want to have to explain to a 5yr old girl.
Again, with the Janet Jacko thing..... Was it that bad????? No. Infact I am glad it happened, because it woke alot of people up to what is really going on. But, if I were watching live with my 5yr old and they saw that.... It wasn't just a Tit It was the way in which she was exposed. In a sexual assault type of manner.
Whay should I be force to have to explain that to my child. Why it is OK for them to do that on TV, but not you honey.
If this happened on Cable it wouldn't have been as big of a deal..... But it didn't. It happened a 4PM west coast time on network TV during family oriented programming....
Chris
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
I listened to HS for 5 year( then it just got old), and I thought it was hillarious. However, If flipping through the channels while in the car with my 5yr old daughter I came upon HS without knowing, and only caught 5 seconds of the show..... Should could very easily hear something which I don't want to have to explain to a 5yr old girl.
Again, with the Janet Jacko thing..... Was it that bad????? No. Infact I am glad it happened, because it woke alot of people up to what is really going on. But, if I were watching live with my 5yr old and they saw that.... It wasn't just a Tit It was the way in which she was exposed. In a sexual assault type of manner.
Whay should I be force to have to explain that to my child. Why it is OK for them to do that on TV, but not you honey.
If this happened on Cable it wouldn't have been as big of a deal..... But it didn't. It happened a 4PM west coast time on network TV during family oriented programming....
Chris
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
QuoteYou just don't want to do the research.
Little boy watches a wrestling move on tv, performs it on the nearest other little kid, kills her.
Cause, effect.
Ever seen a Shwartzenegger film? Terminator? Commando?
Blog Clicky
QuoteThe government didn't fire anyone. The government didn't pull Howard off the air. His employer did. You seem to be long on outrage and short on facts
Dude, read the first few pages, man. FCC is government (or did you miss that incarnation?). FCC laid the restrictions and regulations and forced CCC to do something... fire Stern. It is not a large leap there and if you dig, you will find the same thing. My facts are in line.
QuoteHow did the patriot act get Stern pulled from the air?
I didn't say the Patriot Act pulled Stern from the air. The Patriot Act limited our freedoms which are further hindered by the action of the government to pull Stern off the air.
Quote
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Patriot Act took this ammendment away from us, limiting our freedoms. Taking Stern off the waves violates "the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble." The more the government does against its people, the more freedoms are taken away from us. You see this move as long overdue, I see it as a violation of my rights and a standard to which further censorship will be based.
That seems to be the difference in this thread: those that agree with the action, tend to despise Stern and what he is and stands for. The people that are against the decision to pull him off the air, generally see it as an infringment on the Bill of Rights. What is more important, one man or everyone's freedoms?
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.
- Voltaire
QuoteSounds like you want to dictate what others should watch. If I don't like Howard Stern I should get rid of my TV?
Nope...watch whatever you want. If there's nothing on that you want to watch, don't watch TV, get rid of it. If someone is watching something next door that you don't want to watch....what business is it of yours?
QuoteIf Clear Channels doesn't want Stern on their payroll it's their right to fire him.
They do want him, that's why they are talking to Congress. They don't want to be fined for it. It wasn't a choice if they want him or not. It was a choice of do we want him if the gov't is going to fine us millions of dollars.
This is black mail, pure and simple.
No it isn't.
never pull low......unless you are
His radio show is both boring and predictable.
However, I will say this, his movie Private Parts was quite entertaining.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites