Howard Stern and the FCC

lol, ya never know. All everyone has done is make fun of Bushs intelligence. I typically vote republican, but that doesnt mean George Bush hasnt said about a millions stupid things.

For me, I like both sides of the ball for certain things, although cpayne will tell you quite differently. I just think that our current administration is made up of animals who try to attempt to violate our civil rights in order to leave their mark on history. I love how the oil companies have done virtually the same thing Enron did with lying about their production and the amount of oil they have in their reserves yet no action has been taken. The only thing that could make this administration worse is if they added Mel Gibson. I hate that son of a bitch.

Bush is the type of guy I'd love to party with, but wouldn't let him balance my check book, no less our country. Personally I hope Kerry chooses McCain as his running mate, although I think it's a bit far fetched because I think that would force McCain to switch over to democrat, which won't happen. I'm a bit ignorant as to how that works. If I were President (haha) I would try to have many republicans on my staff and democrats. That way I would get the view from both sides of the ball and could make a balanced decesion.

If only it worked that way. Im sure one day there will be a new party that comes into office that tries to split the difference and tried to make better decisions instead of a decision based on the view of the party.

Personally I'm not a fan of either Bush or Kerry. Bush is the lesser of the two evils and I'm leaning on the 'Anybody but Bush' side.

I voted for Nader last time around. I wish he would have gotten into the game much earlier.

I just wish for once there was someone with a legitimate chance to win who wasn't extremely on one side of the line or the other. I know I'm sometimes liberal about things and others I'm conservative. and as far as the personal privacy goes, I hate how it's getting less and less but if it's kept under strict monitered control, I can except that to keep my friends and family safe. in my mind it touches on what JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." but like I said that's just how my mind's eye see's it. and I can't be the only one who hates it when actors speak out about political topics can I?

I'm going out on a limb here and saying there seem to be quite a few democrats on the Warpath.

While a life-long Republican, I have been very, very disappointed with many of the policies of the current administration. Philosophically, I lean towards Jeffersonian politics with its emphasis on devolution of government and focus on individual liberty. With that said, and for a nation with the great diversity ours has (no - not the pc diversity. Real diversity - actual differences in culture, economic interests, thought and ideology), these Jeffersonian principles should be balanced against the Hamiltonian policies of centralization under a federal system.

As my father so accurately puts it, and as it seems to me, Bush is a "greed Republican"; he worships at the foot of Milton Friedman - free market guru extrodinaire. In doing so, and despite his "compassionate conservative" claim, Bush forgets some of the traditionally essential elements of real "conservatism". As well put by traditionalist thinker Russell Kirk in 1954, "Conservatism is something more than mere solicitude for tidy incomes. Economic self-interest is ridiculously inadequate to hold an economic system together, and even less adequate to preserve order."

With that said, I agree with Matty - Bush is the lesser of two evils. Kerry is essentially an old style liberal who will attempt to reinvoke the failed economic policies of centralized economic planning and wealth redistribution. As for his foreign policy - well, that seems to depend on which way the wind is blowing.

A friend of mine put it this way "I know both the Dems and Republicans lie, I just prefer the Republican lies."

As for the main subject of this post, I am basically with you Daseal in that parental involvment is a must. As a relatively new parent, however, I have noticed that the level of graphic, violent, or other "objectionable" info floating around for general consuption is pretty high and quite prevalent in our society. While I can try to inform and help my children to discern the difference between acceptable and non-acceptable behavior, and I do not believe the rest of the world should be forced to watch the disney channel 24/7, I have come to the belief that their needs to be some safe harbors for families. For example, if you are watching something in primetime and reasonably expect it to be a family event, then you shouldn't have to explain why the lights went out when someone's tit gets exposed.

As for Stern - nope, not something I would let my kids listen to or if they do so, hopefully they would understand enought to not adopt his language, attitudes as their own.

But let me ask you this - Regardless of everyone's prior knowledge that it is unfit for children, is there a level at which something becomes so objectionable that we as society should say "No - we will not permit that to be put into the public awareness through the mass media. We find it so unacceptable as to be unable to endorse it as a society by permitting it to be presented through a regulated medium. You are free to present it in your own manner and at your own expense, but we will not permit it to be presented through a medium regulated by and responsible to the general public?"

If yes, where is the line? If no, what right is there to for the general public to regulate the public conduct or expression of an individual?

I can't be the only one who hates it when actors speak out about political topics can I?

I have no problem with celebrities speaking about political topics unless they do so out of some half-informed, trendy, self-rightousness. Well informed political discussion is absolutely necessary to the continued existence of the republic. I may disagree with them and believe their perspective to be somewhat out of touch by the nature of their lifestyle but, on occasion, some of them do say intelligent things which cause an unexpectedly relevant discourse.

i just get tired of the ones who make it seem as if whoever disagrees with them in the slightest(and this isn't just celebrities), your part of the "machine" to them or even inferior. i appreciate hearing different viewpoints on topics and sometimes debating them to try and get someone to see and possibly understand a different view point. i think the thing that gets me about some of celebrities speaking out about the "injustices" of the world while their living the good life making millions of dollars for pretending to be people they aren't. i just get tired off the news only covering the part of a story they want to show and certain people who speak out only telling half-truths. i don't really consider myself republican or democrat cuz my opinions on topics sway from one to the next and my course of action and beliefs may be a complete opposite from the topic before.

Well I just reread your first post Daseal - <sigh> Where to start??

I totally respect their first amendment rights and feel that the FCC is violating that.

Well, First - under the 1st Amendment, the nature of Stern's speech is subject to regulation. As part of its guarantee of free speech, the 1st Amendment simply does not guarantee that all forms of speech shall be unregulated. Regardless of his attempts to couch it otherwise, Stern's radio show is plainly "commercial speech" as that term is legally defined. There is a longggggg line of Supreme Court cases discussing what types of speech may be regulated and, in doing so, what is permissible regulation for the various types of speech (commercial speech, political speech, etc). Of the various types, "commercial speech" is the one least given to constitutional protections.

Apparently, Stern's actions are being deemed to be in violation of certain regulations previously adopted by the FCC and approved by Congress (Civics 101: administrative agencies propose regulations based on their authorizing statutes, these regulations must then be approved by Congress). These are not regulations which sprang up over night (enforcement of them may differ from administration to administration) and Stern knew of their existence prior to entering the radio business. As such, Stern knew or should have known he was acting in a manner which, at the very least, was touch and go with conduct prohibited by regulation and which Stern should have reasonably guessed could cause problems for him if an administration with less tolerance towards his form of entertainment came to power.

Stern is free to go find a nice public place, get the appropriate permits, and put his show on for anyone to come see it. As long as he conforms to with the appropriate regulatory controls, he will not be arrested and jailed soley on the content of his speech. Radio, however, for legitimate public interests is a regulated medium and speech using that medium is subject regulatory control by the FCC.


Here's a novel idea, fucking be a parent!

Daseal, fine. But, in being a responsible parent, can we ask for some support from the society in which we live and from our fellow citizens within that society? Is it to much to ask that we, as a society, be aware that parents, even the most responsible ones, cannot protect, teach or otherwise be there at all times for our children? And, in order to assist responsible parents and further the legitimate public goal of children's welfare, shouldn't society consider reasonably regulating the content of information which will be placed into the public stream? (I emphasize "reasonably" and recognize that a wide breadth of opinion will exist as to what this means.)

Your various suggestions essentially assume that unsupervised children will make the right choices if properly instructed and taught. At some point, that should be the case. Further, I would generally agree that it is reasonable to expect teens and "tweens" to have such discernment. However, is it too much for parents to ask of their fellow citizens that they assist in limiting the free availability of this junk to children prior to the time that a child could reasonably be expected to have such discernment, regardless of the responsible nature of the parent? Why should I have to explain erectile disfuncton to a seven year old? Because information is so readily available to all children, should responsible parents attempt to educate their third grade child about sexually transmitted diseases in attempt to preempt erroneous and possibly harmful misinformation learned in "the schoolyard"? Is this really the goal we wish to set as a society??

I am not a religious fanatic, but I do think the level of public discourse in this country has reached a point where legitimate societal concern exists (well, actually, I think we reached it a while back). Through no fault of their parents, children are being confronted with information that is totally inappropriate for their age and for which they are unequipped to deal with either emotionally or intellectually. Ignoring this societal problem or blaming it on religious fanatics, forces responsible parents to address adult issues with children sooner rather than later and, in some small way, robs these children of their right to BE children. (But, hey, I wouldn't want that to interfere with your right to create or consume trash).

There is a very selfish undertone to your criticism Daseal - "Why should I have to limit my unrestricted access to information which I like but which may be damaging to your kids? It's your responsibility as a parent, not mine, to restrict their access and teach them what to do when confronted by this stuff!"

To which I respond
"Dammit, we live and exist in this society together. I accept and will take primary responsibility for raising my child, BUT, as we are both members of this society, I may need you to make some reasonable sacrifices so to assist me in raising a well-adjusted member of OUR society. One of those sacrifices is to consider reasonable restrictions on the availability of material inappropriate for children which may, in turn, affect your unlimited access to the same."


Not to mention the current FCC is a puppet for our current administration. A guy named Michael Powell runs the FCC... Yeah... Powell... Colin's son. That explains some things.

OMIGOD - You mean the Federal Communications Commission - an arm of the executive branch of the federal government, an administrative body whose members are appointed by the chief executive, and whose purpose is to execute and administer the nation's laws and regulations in concert with the policies of said chief executive - is <<GASP>> doing just that!!!

(By the way, did Clinton have any "puppet" agency heads while he was president? or did he just try to personally administer each of the agencies subject to his constitutional authority?)

JoeRedskin, I'm not going to even bother putting your responses in quotes, but I'm sure you'll be plenty aware as to which subject I am referring to.

As far as the first amendment rights, the Constitution was left to interpretation. I interpret it a lot looser than you do. Yesterday I worked in the morning, and the person I worked with listened to Howard Stern. I am personally not a fan and I think most of his material is immature, but honestly, there wasn't anything that bad. I definitly didn't see any fineable material. They had insults on there that are tame to a 3rd grader's standards. The launguage is a bit rough, but the programming is designed for adults, not the young audience. I think that as long as he is not coming out and decimating someone with slander (things that aren't true), using totally inappropriate language or talking about sexual details too much - that it's fine. There's a reason this guy has more listeners than any other radio show, people find him amusing. If he hasn't broken the FCC's rules for years, yet all of a sudden decide to fine him heavily all of a sudden, that's not hour our country works.

As far as the parenting issue, I think that network TV (anything you can pick up with an Antenna should be family based programming, at least till 10 o'clock or whenever the current limit is. It's not fair for families to be watching a network TV show and have to wonder if there will be violence and sex thrown around like a male cheerleader in a holding cell. I don't see that as a problem, I think the Janet problem wasn't the worst thing in the world, but it was inappropriate. Had the media not made such a huge deal, I don't think the problem would be what it is right now. The family networks I have no problem with, it's when they start censoring Cable and if Rumsfeld has his way, HBO, Cinemax, etc. Which is absolutly ridiculous. I don't want programming I find entertaining or funny taken off (like last weeks Southpark episode was forced off air, I WANTED TO SEE TIDDLYWINKS!) because people can't control their children. First of all, if your kids don't see a show like Southpark, they'll hear about all the good parts at school. People try to shelter children too much nowdays. I think that the big networks ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS, etc should be clean till at least 10 oclock, but after then it can get a bit rougher (otherwise their ratings will plummet)

Yes, I know that since Bush took over his friends will get cush jobs such as that, or being like the Ambassador to Jamacia. I can think of worse jobs! The problem is that Michael Powell isn't even that smart of a guy, he's a pipsqueek riding his fathers coat tails and coasting by with the family name. The FCC is currently lobbying Congress for unreal amounts of both political pull and that's what I'm upset about. Our television system is damn near communist now. We still have independent networks (although they may as well be aligned either liberal or democrat the way they're split) but the government has so much control over what they can show it's sickening at times.

I hope that helps clarify my position on the matters.