Killing my free speech

[Rudey]

Originally posted by 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.

I think you really don't understand what's going on. I don't disagree with what DeltAlum said. However ask DeltAlum about who controlls most radio stations, if the FCC defined what indecent is, or anything.

You can't seem to say what I'm wrong about. you just say DeltAlum is right. Strange. Emotional? I think not...I think that's just a hot word to avoid discussing something. But choose as you wish.

-Rudey

[PhiPsiRuss]

Clear Channel has lots of shock jocks on their stations. They have only pulled the plug on two, the only two who are vocally opposed to President Bush. Also, they have been closely tied with Republican fund raising for many years.

[Tom Earp]

justamom, as usual, you are the calm in the storm! Sanity before or prior to Insanity.

Shock Jocks, are idiots. They make asses of them selves just as Rush Limbaugh does. Making a lot of money does not make them right.

Talking as some do, it is not in the totality of sanity by raging about certain things whether right or wrong, just raging.

Civility has to reign sooner or later, or we will be in the same sitution as other countrys.

You dont like what I say, I kill you!

[DeltAlum]

Clear Channel's comments:

http://www.clearchannel.com/Corporat...0408_Stern.pdf

They sound somewhat familiar to what I've posted above.

I didn't read it before posting above -- but I do have a reasonable read on the climate in the broadcasting world.

Frankly, with the possibility of either candidate winning in November, Clear Channel would be crazy to succumb (sp?) to political pressure from either side at this point in time in my opinion.

I think they are reacting to the possibility of losing some of their licenses -- which is what makes them money. If you aren't on the air, you don't make a cent.

They were also called to appear and testify before Congress earlier in the year. Not the FCC, but the always impartial (choke!) Congress.

These executives are bowing to the pressure of the government, who, if you hadn't noticed, is bowing more and more to the religious right. They also are a Texas based company (San Antonio), so they don't sit in the most liberal of landscapes.

But, again in my opinion, the biggest factor is the fact that the law is suddenly being enforced and, for the survival of their company, they have to comply.

[Rudey]

Perhaps you'd like to answer my questions at some point as well...if you get the chance. Can you define indecency? Can they? They haven't yet. How is it fair that there are fines intended to essentially a show off the air and dictate people's speech, yet there isn't a way to give a trial to those being judged? How about what percentage of the market is owned by Clear Channel? Those are great questions, don't you think?

I don't care if people don't like what he has to say. That is not the question. The question is their ability to speak.

-Rudey

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Clear Channel's comments:

http://www.clearchannel.com/Corporat...0408_Stern.pdf

They sound somewhat familiar to what I've posted above.

I didn't read it before posting above -- but I do have a reasonable read on the climate in the broadcasting world.

Frankly, with the possibility of either candidate winning in November, Clear Channel would be crazy to succumb (sp?) to political pressure from either side at this point in time in my opinion.

I think they are reacting to the possibility of losing some of their licenses -- which is what makes them money. If you aren't on the air, you don't make a cent.

They were also called to appear and testify before Congress earlier in the year. Not the FCC, but the always impartial (choke!) Congress.

These executives are bowing to the pressure of the government, who, if you hadn't noticed, is bowing more and more to the religious right. They also are a Texas based company (San Antonio), so they don't sit in the most liberal of landscapes.

But, again in my opinion, the biggest factor is the fact that the law is suddenly being enforced and, for the survival of their company, they have to comply.

[Peaches-n-Cream]

A decade ago after he wrote his book "Private Parts", Howard Stern was on Donahue. It was very interesting. I used to listen to him at the time. I never thought that he was vulgar, irreverent, but not vulgar. I guess that vulgar is subjective.

Anyway, Howard was being outrageous, but funny. The audience was filled primarily with his fans who were young men under 30. They hooted and cheered. Then Howard got serious about the issue of the First Amendment. Apparently, a librarian named Pam Antonelli had seen that his book was on the New York Times bestsellers list so she bought it for her library in Westlaco, TX. She was fired for purchasing material harmful to minors. It was pretty shocking. She cried because she loved her job and felt that she hadn't done anything wrong. I found it pretty shocking that this could happen in America in the 1990s.

What is indecent? What is obscene? What is harmful to minors? I'll know it when I see it or hear it isn't a good enough answer. I am beginning to believe that this has nothing to do with decency and has everything to do with silencing a man who speaks out against President George W. Bush. But who will be next? David Letterman, Jay Leno, or Conan O'Brien because they makes fun of the President. These men will be fine. They are talented multi millionaires who can walk away from their jobs right now and never have to work again. Or maybe it will be someone like that librarian, a regular person who needs her job to eat and have a home. That frightens me. BTW Pam Antonelli sued and settled out of court, but never got her job back.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by Rudey
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

"What shocks me may be sustenance for my neighbor."

NAME THAT JUSTICE.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
Perhaps you'd like to answer my questions at some point as well...if you get the chance. Can you define indecency? Can they? They haven't yet.

No, I wouldn't like to answer your questions, because I'm not entitled to. I am neither a Member of Congress nor do I sit on, or work for, the FCC.

I don't pretend to be a member of the Moralty Police, but I can define indecency for myself, and frankly, Stern crosses that line. But, I would not propose to define it for you or anyone else. On the other hand, I guess Congress feels that they have that right and authority. If they haven't defined it yet, it's obvious that they are in the process.

I was taught, though, that the use, for profit or not, of the "public's airwaves" was a privilege granted by the government to broadcast in the public's "interest, convenience and necessity," to borrow words from the original "Act." I have spent a long career trying to live up to those directions. I personally don't believe that soft porn is part of any of those definitions. It has saddened me that some members of my profession have not chosen to operate to those standards.

My comments to now have been purely to point out a broadcast management point of view as I see it in this particular case. The only reason I do that is that I have been in that business and feel I have the background and some perspective on how those decisions are made.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
"What shocks me may be sustenance for my neighbor."

NAME THAT JUSTICE.

This was Miller vs California. I don't remember the year but it was over porn material. The justice was Willy Douglas.

-Rudey

[Rudey]

Ah, so no answer.

Well since you'd like to sit quiet:

Indecency is not defined because it cannot be defined. It is essentially what the market can bear at that very moment. What is carried in one publication or on broadcast in one market is different from what's in another market. It, simply, is impossible to define.

While you can't define indecency, you say he's crossed the line. Don't listen to him. Don't watch two men kiss. I don't find it indecent and I want to see it. Some found the violence in movies indecent, yet the violence in The Passion was acceptable.

You say they are in the process of defining it - in fact you say "it's obvious". You can't define indecency, you can't answer my questions because you're not a member of congress or work for the FCC, but it's obvious.

The FCC has come after Stern before. They can't define indecency. Standards are never even stated.

Again, you can still answer this question. What companies own the radio broadcast market and to what extent? You don't need to be a congressman for that.

Conservatives should be supporting freedom of speech. This isn't Stalin's playground. I don't support parades in the middle of the street with naked chicks, but I should be allowed to listen to what I want, when I want, in my own privacy even.

-Rudey

Originally posted by DeltAlum
No, I wouldn't like to answer your questions, because I'm not entitled to. I am neither a Member of Congress nor do I sit on, or work for, the FCC.

I don't pretend to be a member of the Moralty Police, but I can define indecency for myself, and frankly, Stern crosses that line. But, I would not propose to define it for you or anyone else. On the other hand, I guess Congress feels that they have that right and authority. If they haven't defined it yet, it's obvious that they are in the process.

I was taught, though, that the use, for profit or not, of the "public's airwaves" was a privilege granted by the government to broadcast in the public's "interest, convenience and necessity," to borrow words from the original "Act." I have spent a long career trying to live up to those directions. I personally don't believe that soft porn is part of any of those definitions. It has saddened me that some members of my profession have not chosen to operate to those standards.

My comments to now have been purely to point out a broadcast management point of view as I see it in this particular case. The only reason I do that is that I have been in that business and feel I have the background and some perspective on how those decisions are made.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
You say they are in the process of defining it - in fact you say "it's obvious". You can't define indecency, you can't answer my questions because you're not a member of congress or work for the FCC, but it's obvious.

Mind if we stay in context? I say it's "obvious" because of the case at hand and the previous "Love Sponge" one. The most previous case I can think of involved a small group of stations which were fined (and I think a license may have been forfeited), but at the moment I can't remember the name of the case. I'm sure it will come to me as soon as I post this.

You said earlier, I think, that (paraphrasing) these actions set precedent. Perhaps that is how Congress intends to do just that. That is to set a precedent through these fines and decisions. If they aren't overturned by judcial review, they pretty much become the yardstick used in these cases. If I have misread your point, I'm sorry, but that's the way it sounds to me.

As for your other question -- which I'm not sure is really important since, again, it is Congress who makes the rules -- yes, I can certainly look in the Broadcasting and Cable Yearbook or other publication or the FCC website and find out who owns the most broadcasting properties. But, again, they aren't taking these actions -- they are reacting in order to protect their business.

The number one owner in radio is Clear Channel. Infinity, for whom Stern actually works, is another giant. Television is another story since there is still a "cap" on the size of the audience that any owner can control through station ownership. Fox and ABC are at the cap, CBS and NBC are somewhat below.

Personally, I don't like the consolidation of media ownership -- which is particularly true in radio and newspapers -- but, once again, not being a Member of Congress, I can only make my view known or keep my own council. When I started in broadcasting, any given owner could own only seven of each kind of station -- TV, AM, FM. That was raised to 12 a few years ago. They also broke up most of the local "monopolies" where one owner had both the local newspaper and broadcast stations in the same market. With deregulation, the numbers were basically done away with, replaced only by the percentage of audience mentioned above for TV only.

Finally, once again, I don't intend to comment on whether Howard Stern should be fired, fined or otherwise taken off the air. It's not my brief. If you aren't interested in my take on the situation, and what parts I care to (or not to) comment on, feel free to ignore it. I won't be offended.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
If you aren't interested in my take on the situation, and what parts I care to (or not to) comment on, feel free to ignore it. I won't be offended.

Stern wishes people who aren't interested in his take would just ignore him as well.

-Rudey

Rudey,

I have to agree with you today! I was actually thinking about free speech today and how everyone is trying to restrict it.

I believe what I think is decent and what you think is decent are going to be totally different but that's OK! That is America and that's what free speech is about . . . not imposing on what someone else thinks is decent.

For instance, I think porno and anything related to it should be outlawed. I know it's not defined by Congress or the Judiciary because one person can think pictures of the Sistine (sp?) chapel's ceiling could be a type of pornography but think that Playboy and Playgirl are just an expression of speech. I will take a quote from Charlene on Designing Women, "The Kit and Kat Theatre sure knows what to play. It's not like they get the films mixed up with a Disney movie."

[GeekyPenguin]

Actually obscenity has been defined by the Supreme Court. It's currently at a three-prong standard to determine if the work has "redeeming value" as a whole, but I will let one of our GC JDs elaborate on that further.

BTW, if anybody ever wants to read a hilarious SC opinion, check out the opinion of Scalia in the Kitty Kat Loung case, he has a lot of fun with words.

[33girl]

Originally posted by moe.ron
Slight hijack

ClearChannel is the owned by Lucifer himself.

End of Slight Hijack

Back to the debate

Yes.

Stern's getting kicked off Crap Channel has nothing to do with "indecency" or the fines they might have to pay - if that were the case they'd have to take a lot of songs off the air and cancel a lot of concerts. It is all about sucking up to GWB so the amount of stations they're allowed to own won't be reduced.

Stern is anti GWB and anti CC. This is what got him canned from the CC stations. Period.