wrveres wrote:You can listen to the whole interview here ... Its actually kind of lame, but somwhat informative, it even has the commercials .. But If you just want the Howard Stern stuff .. it starts at minute 25:00 and lasts until minute 38
I have to agree that Howard was respectful and from what I could tell, he does in fact have a legitimate beef.
They said after Howard went off the air, that Howard hasn't done some of the worst things they have heard. If that's the case, then why does he have the biggest fines in history? Interesting.......
Howard also claims that he's tried to take the commission to court for a ruling, but they delay it and stop Viacom (where Howard currently is) from purchasing other radio stations until the fines are paid. So they won't go court, and would rather blackmail Viacom into paying the fines by not allowing them to continue business as usual? Interesting........
Howard also claims to have been fined for saying something that Oprah said using the exact same words. Oprah's still fighting it, but it hasn't been finalized yet? Interesting...........
All in all, I enjoyed hearing the discussion and did find it to be a bit informative. Thanks WR!
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
LCBOY wrote:Stern is a "self-righteous" fool. His show was just plain vile and disgusting. Then he claims the governemt is out to get him and that he is fighting for his free-speech rights,...blah, blah, blah. Istead of using his show to promote evil why doesn't he use his show to try to help people. He is in a position to help others.
To each his own and if people dont like him they shouldnt be forced to listen but however I thought he was great on the radio and listned to him for 3 years out of a station in Charlotte. About 2 yrs ago they took him off that station and I cant pick him up anywhere in this area. It is a shame that people cnat just tune something they dont like out but instead have to ruin it for the people who do like it.
Thank you! If you don't like what someone is doing.....just ignore it! There aren't many things I get worked up over, but this is one of them. No one is holding a gun to people's heads making them listen to him or watch other things on TV the FCC has arbitrarily determined is "bad" for us. Why should a handful of zealots be able to decide what we can and cannot watch? Why should they be the ones to police the airwaves which last time I checked no one person owns. Isn't that the government intruding way too much on our rights? We should be able to do whatever we want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, and listening to a radio show falls well within those guidelines. OK, I'm off my soapbox now.
the problem is that we would not have to have any laws if there were not so many idiots and lawyers running around. Howard stern has gone too far in the past, but that is what he wanted. He was going to keep pushing until he got a fine, that was what made him popular. I think now he regrets it and has tried to ease up but the FCC is still on him like stink on poop. I guess that is the FCC's way of saying, dont f--- with us. I have no problem with that really. It is just like the bratty kid vs the good kid, someone who is always pissing you off is not going to get away with the same stuff the good kid does because you know if you dont punish the bratty kid he will take it further where the good kid probably wont. Life is not fair, deal with it Howard. When he goes to XM, will that be like switching from a network TV channel to cable, so more freedom? That would be cool.
LCBOY wrote:Stern is a "self-righteous" fool. His show was just plain vile and disgusting. Then he claims the governemt is out to get him and that he is fighting for his free-speech rights,...blah, blah, blah. Istead of using his show to promote evil why doesn't he use his show to try to help people. He is in a position to help others.
To each his own and if people dont like him they shouldnt be forced to listen but however I thought he was great on the radio and listned to him for 3 years out of a station in Charlotte. About 2 yrs ago they took him off that station and I cant pick him up anywhere in this area. It is a shame that people cnat just tune something they dont like out but instead have to ruin it for the people who do like it.
Thank you! If you don't like what someone is doing.....just ignore it! There aren't many things I get worked up over, but this is one of them. No one is holding a gun to people's heads making them listen to him or watch other things on TV the FCC has arbitrarily determined is "bad" for us. Why should a handful of zealots be able to decide what we can and cannot watch? Why should they be the ones to police the airwaves which last time I checked no one person owns. Isn't that the government intruding way too much on our rights? We should be able to do whatever we want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, and listening to a radio show falls well within those guidelines. OK, I'm off my soapbox now.
Ahhh..another typical example of secular humanist philsophy, if it doesn't "hurt" anyone else then it must be good. How ironic that people should mention "zealots" but then they turn around and demand that Stern, as an example, must be allowed on the air and if he is not allowed on the air then somehow the government is intruding and we have lost some of our "rights". The problem is that a lot of people don't know what the word "rights" really means.
OK, I'm off my soapbox now.
LCBOY wrote:Stern is a "self-righteous" fool. His show was just plain vile and disgusting. Then he claims the governemt is out to get him and that he is fighting for his free-speech rights,...blah, blah, blah. Istead of using his show to promote evil why doesn't he use his show to try to help people. He is in a position to help others.
To each his own and if people dont like him they shouldnt be forced to listen but however I thought he was great on the radio and listned to him for 3 years out of a station in Charlotte. About 2 yrs ago they took him off that station and I cant pick him up anywhere in this area. It is a shame that people cnat just tune something they dont like out but instead have to ruin it for the people who do like it.
Thank you! If you don't like what someone is doing.....just ignore it! There aren't many things I get worked up over, but this is one of them. No one is holding a gun to people's heads making them listen to him or watch other things on TV the FCC has arbitrarily determined is "bad" for us. Why should a handful of zealots be able to decide what we can and cannot watch? Why should they be the ones to police the airwaves which last time I checked no one person owns. Isn't that the government intruding way too much on our rights? We should be able to do whatever we want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, and listening to a radio show falls well within those guidelines. OK, I'm off my soapbox now.
Ahhh..another typical example of secular humanist philsophy, if it doesn't "hurt" anyone else then it must be good. How ironic that people should mention "zealots" but then they turn around and demand that Stern, as an example, must be allowed on the air and if he is not allowed on the air then somehow the government is intruding and we have lost some of our "rights". The problem is that a lot of people don't know what the word "rights" really means. OK, I'm off my soapbox now.
I kind of agree with you LCBOY. It's like saying that it's ok to burn crosses so long as its not on my lawn.
But you're also putting up a straw man. Nobody said that Stern must be good for us - they only said that he should have the freedom to do what he does. Everyone agrees that there should be limits on what people can say and do. Stern's main beef is that the FCC alone determines what is proper. Stern isn't allowed to go to court to have a jury of his peers determine what crosses the line. Add in to the mix that the FCC is politically motivated (at least it seems so) and I smell a rat.
LCBOY wrote:Stern is a "self-righteous" fool. His show was just plain vile and disgusting. Then he claims the governemt is out to get him and that he is fighting for his free-speech rights,...blah, blah, blah. Istead of using his show to promote evil why doesn't he use his show to try to help people. He is in a position to help others.
To each his own and if people dont like him they shouldnt be forced to listen but however I thought he was great on the radio and listned to him for 3 years out of a station in Charlotte. About 2 yrs ago they took him off that station and I cant pick him up anywhere in this area. It is a shame that people cnat just tune something they dont like out but instead have to ruin it for the people who do like it.
Thank you! If you don't like what someone is doing.....just ignore it! There aren't many things I get worked up over, but this is one of them. No one is holding a gun to people's heads making them listen to him or watch other things on TV the FCC has arbitrarily determined is "bad" for us. Why should a handful of zealots be able to decide what we can and cannot watch? Why should they be the ones to police the airwaves which last time I checked no one person owns. Isn't that the government intruding way too much on our rights? We should be able to do whatever we want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, and listening to a radio show falls well within those guidelines. OK, I'm off my soapbox now.
Ahhh..another typical example of secular humanist philsophy, if it doesn't "hurt" anyone else then it must be good. How ironic that people should mention "zealots" but then they turn around and demand that Stern, as an example, must be allowed on the air and if he is not allowed on the air then somehow the government is intruding and we have lost some of our "rights". The problem is that a lot of people don't know what the word "rights" really means. OK, I'm off my soapbox now.
I kind of agree with you LCBOY. It's like saying that it's ok to burn crosses so long as its not on my lawn.
But you're also putting up a straw man. Nobody said that Stern must be good for us - they only said that he should have the freedom to do what he does. Everyone agrees that there should be limits on what people can say and do. Stern's main beef is that the FCC alone determines what is proper. Stern isn't allowed to go to court to have a jury of his peers determine what crosses the line. Add in to the mix that the FCC is politically motivated (at least it seems so) and I smell a rat.
I would agree that Stern should have recourse to challenge the FCC decision if he does not agree with their decision, in effect "have his day in court". It comes down to how does the FCC determine what is "proper"? How were these rules created and by what guidelines were they created? Stern comes across as pompous about being some sort of "freedom fighter" as if he were Patrick Henry or Geroge Washington. Hardly...
putting up a cross in someones yard is a direct attack on a group of people and a symbol of hatred. That is not okay anywhere. That is in no way related to what Stern does.
What is the definition of rights or your definition? It sounds like to me that just because you dont like it that he must not be good and therefore should not be on the air.
LCBOY wrote:Stern is a "self-righteous" fool. His show was just plain vile and disgusting. Then he claims the governemt is out to get him and that he is fighting for his free-speech rights,...blah, blah, blah. Istead of using his show to promote evil why doesn't he use his show to try to help people. He is in a position to help others.
To each his own and if people dont like him they shouldnt be forced to listen but however I thought he was great on the radio and listned to him for 3 years out of a station in Charlotte. About 2 yrs ago they took him off that station and I cant pick him up anywhere in this area. It is a shame that people cnat just tune something they dont like out but instead have to ruin it for the people who do like it.
Thank you! If you don't like what someone is doing.....just ignore it! There aren't many things I get worked up over, but this is one of them. No one is holding a gun to people's heads making them listen to him or watch other things on TV the FCC has arbitrarily determined is "bad" for us. Why should a handful of zealots be able to decide what we can and cannot watch? Why should they be the ones to police the airwaves which last time I checked no one person owns. Isn't that the government intruding way too much on our rights? We should be able to do whatever we want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, and listening to a radio show falls well within those guidelines. OK, I'm off my soapbox now.
Ahhh..another typical example of secular humanist philsophy, if it doesn't "hurt" anyone else then it must be good. How ironic that people should mention "zealots" but then they turn around and demand that Stern, as an example, must be allowed on the air and if he is not allowed on the air then somehow the government is intruding and we have lost some of our "rights". The problem is that a lot of people don't know what the word "rights" really means. OK, I'm off my soapbox now.
I kind of agree with you LCBOY. It's like saying that it's ok to burn crosses so long as its not on my lawn.
But you're also putting up a straw man. Nobody said that Stern must be good for us - they only said that he should have the freedom to do what he does. Everyone agrees that there should be limits on what people can say and do. Stern's main beef is that the FCC alone determines what is proper. Stern isn't allowed to go to court to have a jury of his peers determine what crosses the line. Add in to the mix that the FCC is politically motivated (at least it seems so) and I smell a rat.
I would agree that Stern should have recourse to challenge the FCC decision if he does not agree with their decision, in effect "have his day in court". It comes down to how does the FCC determine what is "proper"? How were these rules created and by what guidelines were they created? Stern comes across as pompous about being some sort of "freedom fighter" as if he were Patrick Henry or Geroge Washington. Hardly...
Right now, hand-picked, politically appointed bureaucrats determine what is decent and what is indecent.
There is no hearing or review involved. The FCC polices, adjudicates and punishes. If that seems a little scary to you maybe you would view Stern as a freedom fighter.
Why do you care that Stern is pompous? He's a comedian and that is part of his schtick. If you don't like it, you really shouldn't listen.
As to whether he is indecent and whether what he says should be illegal, I beleive that that should be judged by the people and not by a few politically-motivated individuals. Also, what is indecent for Stern should also be indecent for others - enforce the rules evenly.
I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but LC what exactly is your definition of "rights"?
LCBOY wrote:It comes down to how does the FCC determine what is "proper"? How were these rules created and by what guidelines were they created? Stern comes across as pompous about being some sort of "freedom fighter" as if he were Patrick Henry or Geroge Washington. Hardly...
That is pretty much my whole issue with it. But no one in their right mind would mistake them -- FCC or Stern -- for being objective and or rational, it's obvious they aren't. Stern is trying to get publicity and the FCC has bitten off more than they can chew on this one I think. While I personally don't agree with most of what goes on on Stern's show, I still feel in my heart of hearts that he has the right to say it and in turn broadcast it if he so chooses. I'm in no way promoting what he does or the content of his show, but IMO he has the right to do what he's doing, or at the very least have the courts decide one way or the other, not a board of like Mook said hand picked bureaucrats being the sole arbiter. But there again I think our differences are in our defenitions of rights, and those protected by the Constitution.
If you can't tell by now, I'm not very good at these political type arguments (that's why I don't like politics I guess), so if I'm just rambling let me know and I'll shut up.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by LBJackal » Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:01 am 
How ironic that people should mention "zealots" but then they turn around and demand that Stern, as an example, must be allowed on the air and if he is not allowed on the air then somehow the government is intruding and we have lost some of our "rights". The problem is that a lot of people don't know what the word "rights" really means.
