Killing my free speech

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by Rudey
Also nobody is able to define what being indecent is.

Indecency is when you advocate voting for the other candidate, and you have over 8 million daily listeners.

Oh no, that's free speech.

I'm so confused.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
Indecency is when you advocate voting for the other candidate, and you have over 8 million daily listeners.

Oh no, that's free speech.

I'm so confused.

Exactly. I just wish the Democrats had at least defended him. Anyone. I think only Gary Ackerman might have been the only one.

-Rudey

[justamom]

I have to say I'm kind of amused at all this "passion" defending
Howard Stern. I HAVE SEEN HIS SHOW and it turned my stomach.
But that's MY opinion and everyone is entitled to an opinion.

A few points-
1.Like midwesterngirl, I'll follow the money.
Did it ever occur to anyone that he was losing listenership/viewership and the ad dollar wasn't paying off?
That maybe some of his former supporters have changed and no longer care for his style of humor?
2.DA-"Fact is that indecency on the airwaves is against the law. Has been since The Communications Act of 1934. It's just that nobody every really enforced it."
3.Originally posted by krazy It is CC choice to air whatever they want... They do not HAVE to air anything... If they choose to not air this guy, they do not have to. That is THEIR right of free speech...

Some have said they see a genius...I see an OOOGLY, old "fart" (he's just about my age) who's trying desperately to remain cool and "hip". He's rather a pathetic sight-almost laughable IMO!

I have a hard time seeing humor in allowing people to degrade themselves.

[DeltAlum]

I guess you can only push the outside of the envelope so far. That's true in a lot of things, and has finally happened here in terms of the Communications Act.

Two factors here probably really affected Clear Channel's decision.

First, the fines for indecency are being raised dramatically by Congress.

Second, in the past, the FCC has made their fines on a "program" basis. In other words, if someone was "indecent" 10 times in a program, the were fined one time for the program. Now, they're fining for each offense. So, instead of $27, 500 (I think) the fine would be $275,000 -- or whatever.

You have to know, though, that for every Stern fan, there are probably thousands of detractors. So how do those "rights" balance against yours who like him? I don't know the answer to that, but someone has obviously decided that Howard has gone too far.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
I guess you can only push the outside of the envelope so far. That's true in a lot of things, and has finally happened here in terms of the Communications Act.

Two factors here probably really affected Clear Channel's decision.

First, the fines for indecency are being raised dramatically by Congress.

Second, in the past, the FCC has made their fines on a "program" basis. In other words, if someone was "indecent" 10 times in a program, the were fined one time for the program. Now, they're fining for each offense. So, instead of $27, 500 (I think) the fine would be $275,000 -- or whatever.

You have to know, though, that for every Stern fan, there are probably thousands of detractors. So how do those "rights" balance against yours who like him? I don't know the answer to that, but someone has obviously decided that Howard has gone too far.

That's what angers me most. You have these waste-of-society religious nut mothers who don't do anything but complain to legislators when they're home compared with howard's fan base who doesn't have that time or ability to organize. They are saying I can't listen, feel, and talk about what I want. To listen to that radio station I have to turn on a radio, then i have to specifically tune in for it. They make an argument that kids can listen to it but what kids?? they're supposed to be in school. They say that howard can go on late at night but why?? When I was younger i listened to the most graphic programs like love line in my room at night.

Point blank they are telling me what i'm allowed to think and what I'm allowed to express and the manner in which I do it. This is such fascist crap and I hope these women all congregate for some weird convention and are smitten by the good lord for passing judgement.

-Rudey

[Rudey]

Originally posted by justamom
I have to say I'm kind of amused at all this "passion" defending
Howard Stern. I HAVE SEEN HIS SHOW and it turned my stomach.
But that's MY opinion and everyone is entitled to an opinion.

A few points-
1.Like midwesterngirl, I'll follow the money.
Did it ever occur to anyone that he was losing listenership/viewership and the ad dollar wasn't paying off?
That maybe some of his former supporters have changed and no longer care for his style of humor?
2.DA-"Fact is that indecency on the airwaves is against the law. Has been since The Communications Act of 1934. It's just that nobody every really enforced it."
3.Originally posted by krazy It is CC choice to air whatever they want... They do not HAVE to air anything... If they choose to not air this guy, they do not have to. That is THEIR right of free speech...

Some have said they see a genius...I see an OOOGLY, old "fart" (he's just about my age) who's trying desperately to remain cool and "hip". He's rather a pathetic sight-almost laughable IMO!

I have a hard time seeing humor in allowing people to degrade themselves.

1) The ad revenue is not down. He is a very popular personality pulling in a large following in so many markets and being paid very well to compensate for that.
2) They never said what was indecent and they never enforced it and set a precedent.
3) That is a free markets argument and this is not a free market when you have monopolies. Then you have the argument restricting free speech...again not a free decision on the part of free market businesses since htey're getting regulated.

-Rudey

[justamom]

1) The ad revenue is not down. He is a very popular personality pulling in a large following in so many markets and being paid very well to compensate for that.

...not any more.

Rudey, I figured you wouldn't agree, but DA said it best-You have to know, though, that for every Stern fan, there are probably thousands of detractors. So how do those "rights" balance against yours who like him? I don't know the answer to that, but someone has obviously decided that Howard has gone too far.

edited here-This reminds me of Anita Bryant when she lost her sponsorship for Florida Orange Juice. Would you still feel the same way, defending Doctor Laura on TV, on the merit of free speech that is?

[moe.ron]

Slight hijack

ClearChannel is the owned by Lucifer himself.

End of Slight Hijack

Back to the debate

[DeltAlum]

Revenues may be outstanding, but when it comes to the point that the potential fines outweigh the income, a business decision must be made.

It does potentially go one step beyond, though. The final judgement against a licensee can be loss of the license in addition to hefty fines.

No personality is worth that.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by justamom
1) The ad revenue is not down. He is a very popular personality pulling in a large following in so many markets and being paid very well to compensate for that.

...not any more.

Rudey, I figured you wouldn't agree, but DA said it best-You have to know, though, that for every Stern fan, there are probably thousands of detractors. So how do those "rights" balance against yours who like him? I don't know the answer to that, but someone has obviously decided that Howard has gone too far.

Not any more what?

And since we're playing the majority game I'd like to take away your voting rights and keep you barefoot and pregnant because there are a lot more people in this world who believe that women should be subservient. It's not your right to tell me what's indecent.

-Rudey

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Revenues may be outstanding, but when it comes to the point that the potential fines outweigh the income, a business decision must be made.

It does potentially go one step beyond, though. The final judgement against a licensee can be loss of the license in addition to hefty fines.

No personality is worth that.

I'm saying you're A is unfair because of B and you're repeating what B is. I didn't ask for that.

They can't define indecency.
They haven't set precedent by equal enforcement.
They won't allow him to defend himself in a court.

This is exactly what pushes people from the center away. The fact that people are encroaching on us from all sides and can't even justify themselves. There are no checks and balances. Every day I wake up with a hate for what the future might hold in this country.

-Rudey

[Rudey]

Please before this turns into an Arab country with dictators thinking for us, please contact your congressman and let them know we want our free speech.

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

-Rudey
--Death to tyrants

[justamom]

I do not like his show-period. That's not the point. I've seen and heard many show's on TV or radio that I enjoyed, but the listener base wasn't strong enough to keep it OR the sponsors were threatened with a boycott. (Look what recently happened to the show on Reagan.) I certainly never looked at it as someone denying me my rights, rather expressing theirs. Sorry, but it looks like that "silent majority" is starting to get a little more vocal.

So poor Howard's marketable value is in the toilet. BOO-HOO. It's only business. Considering what DA has said about the fines, you of ALL people should understand that.

Barefoot and pregnant-Been there, done that. That's hardly an argument I would expect from you Rudey-you're much more intelligent than that.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by justamom
I do not like his show-period. That's not the point. I've seen and heard many show's on TV or radio that I enjoyed, but the listener base wasn't strong enough to keep it OR the sponsors were threatened with a boycott. (Look what recently happened to the show on Reagan.) I certainly never looked at it as someone denying me my rights, rather expressing theirs. Sorry, but it looks like that "silent majority" is starting to get a little more vocal.

So poor Howard's marketable value is in the toilet. BOO-HOO. It's only business. Considering what DA has said about the fines, you of ALL people should understand that.

Barefoot and pregnant-Been there, done that. That's hardly an argument I would expect from you Rudey-you're much more intelligent than that.

You have got to be kidding me JAM. This is not a business decision, it is a political one. Do you know who owns those companies, how much he contributes politically, or any of that? Do you realize it's not a fair and open market? These are monopolies.

Then you have the FCC headed by an incompetant man who has his job because he's related to none other than idiot yes-man black token Collin Powell. An organization that chooses to enforce rules when they please and levy fines without any need for an explanation or putting someone on trial.

This is different from the Reagan show.

These are not the silent minority that is just now getting a voice. What a crock that is. This is the same group of people that elected Carter and went on to elect Reagan and Bush. A powerful group that homeschools their kids and sends them off to idiot schools where they are over-represented politically because of how well they are organized and connected.

And that argument was intelligent JAM. You seem to have forgotten it in your fervor to grow old. First they shut you up, then they keep you from thinking, pretty soon you'll be eating borscht in a factory. What a crock.

-Rudey

[justamom]

Rudey, I do not want to argue about an argument for the sake of arguing.
You get way too emotional when you respond and say things that are irrelevant or"bitter".
Because of DA's experience in this specific area of business, I will have to accept his input as the more credible information. You KNOW there are areas of knowledge where I respect your word over most, but when you respond with flippant remarks,
you sometimes become your own worst enemy. People generally like a good debate.
A good debate however follows certain rules of decorum.