The FCC is one scary organization

[rauchman]

I heard today on the news that the FCC is going after Howard Stern again. I'm not parituclarly a huge fan of his, but I do find him amusing. Aparantly the FCC does not. They are fining him because of a comment he made stating that the way we are heading, we will be a religious state within 20 years. While I happen to agree with him, that's not the issue. In his commentary he did not curse or use any type of profaine language. What the hell is happening to this country? Where the hell is FREE SPEECH. If you don't like Howard Stern....it's very very simple....change the station or turn the radio off.....end of story. I must agree with Mr. Stern that this whole definition of decency, as provided by the FCC, reeks of fundamental religious propoganda. Yup, the good ole U.S.A. is slowly becoming not so good anymore. Wonder how Canada is?

 

[Ukraine Train]

If you don't like Howard Stern....it's very very simple....change the station or turn the radio off.....end of story.

I agree completely. Some people say that programs like Stern are corrupting children, etc. but I think it all goes back to parenting. It's a parent's job to educate their children what is "right" and that when they hear/see profanity or other innapropriate things they need to understand that this is not "right". It is NOT a parent's job to keep their child sheltered, the children need to have the ability to filter what they experience by themselves.

 

[critter]

You just do not understand! Those superrior, elite, intellectual pol's of ours being such a benevolent and caring group are just looking out for the best interests of all us poor surfs, degenerate and ignorent underlings and to do so they just must exert CONTROL over ever facet of our life: our guns, our speech, our health care, our finances, our driving, our marriages, when and how we start/end our lives, etc.

 

[rauchman]

critter & ukrainetrain

I agree totally. Since I have been about 13 or so ( am 34 now), I've always said, within my lifetime I am going to see a crazy revolt happen in this country. That pressure cooker the government is putting us in, is happening. Sooner or later something is going to boil over. I'm hoping the gay marriage issue is a rallying cry for those folks (I'm not gay, but am seriously offended that the government feels it needs to define what a marriage is based on religious tradition) that don't fit in that fundamental religious philosophy and lifestyle. I have a feeling the gay marriage issue will become a huge issue for an election year.

 

[TimRB]

The concept of freedom of speech or of the press is exactly that. You can get on a soapbox, stand on any street corner, and vent your views. Likewise, you have a right to print anything you want and distribute it. You do not have a right to say anything you want on the radio.

The electromagnetic spectrum is public property. It belongs to the people, and you have no more right to use it any way you want to than you have to build hamburger stands on BLM land.

I don't follow Howard Stern, and I don't know whether he crossed over the line, but the idea that people can simply tune to another station or turn off the radio doesn't wash. The radio band is finite.

Tim

 

[ksnecktieman]

I think you are mistaken Tim. I do have that right. So does Rush Limbaugh, and Howard Stern.

AMMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petitionthe government for a redress of grievances.

Do you think that because there was no radio when that was written it does not include radio under "the press"? It does not say "speak privately". I think I could even include it under the "to assemble" portion also.

 

[Mike Irwin]

The FCC is starting to make noise about going after cable and satellite programming, including XM and Sirius radio.

You have to subscribe and PAY for these services, and yet the FCC believes that you should be protected.

Just wait, folks, it won't be too long before the FCC attempts to assert control over the content of the internet.

 

[Harry Tuttle]

in congress this week the critters are entertaining the idea
of increasing the fine for an obsentity violation from

$2700 per
to
$500,000 per

 

[antoniov218]

Its the same thing as the whole "video games ruin our children" thing. Parents are just looking for a scapegoat.

 

[cordex]

Just wait, folks, it won't be too long before the FCC attempts to assert control over the content of the internet.

And why not, Mike? After all, we learned from TimRB that if it isn't an eighteenth-century style printing press or unamplified, non-broadcast spoken word it isn't covered by the first amendment. Telephones might well be subject to the same kind of regulation too, right? Especially cell phones.

I wonder how Tim's interpretation extends to the second amendment ...

 

[TimRB]

"Do you think that because there was no radio when that was written it does not include radio under "the press"? It does not say "speak privately". I think I could even include it under the "to assemble" portion also."

Necktieman, understand that I am not condemning Howard Stern; nor am I defending the FCC--for all I know *they* may have crossed over the line. All I am saying is that the airwaves are public property and are subject to restrictions. This is different from airing your views in a public *place*.

Put another way, "freedom of the press" means that those who own the presses have the freedom. You have no right to force publication of your views on anyone's press, public or private. You *do* have the right to use your own press to print your message. Your right to the public press of the airwaves is limited.

Tim

 

[Bud Wiser]

Howard Stern, Radio, Cable TV, Rap Muzak, & all the Media is an open sewer and desparately needs to be cleaned up.

Hooray for the FCC! Fine them out of existance!

Boo! To the Nimrods who don't see anything wrong with the Mass Media the way it has been for the last several years!

You are on the insignificant fringe of the growing public revolt with Mass Media and Governmental assault on the sensibilities of Citizens...

 

[Harry Tuttle]

"shock jocks" pull a 5 share
in other words 95 % of the market are not listening

don't like it?
turn the dial

wanna listen until they do something that offends you and yer carpool of toddlers?
:banghead:

 

[Augustwest]

The electromagnetic spectrum is public property.

No more so than the lot that my house sits on is...

 

[ksnecktieman]

Tim? I can not force publication of my views on any one's press? Am I allowed to purchase the use of it? Or do I have to buy my own press?

Do you agree with the asault weapons ban, Tim? After all, when the second amendment was written "arms" were all muzzle loading single shots.

In my opinion "the press" should include by inference, radio, and television, and the internet.

 

[J Jones]

FCC = Ministry of Truth.

Enough said.

 

[Pendragon]

That was breath taking.


While they are cleaning everything up, how about they get rid of all the wrong political opinions and opinion makers too?


The FCC policy should simply be "No bad stuff, only good stuff".

That about covers it - no?

 

[QuickDraw]

If the FCC wants to clean up the airwaves,they can start with the
lousy supposed "sit-coms,reality shows" on TV!!

QuickDraw

 

[Sean Cloherty]

ksnecktieman:

WHat we are talking about here is commercial speech which has long been given less protection.

That is why it is O.K. for you to tell people that you think that smoking is really good for people's health, but that Phillip Morris cannot.

 

[ksnecktieman]

I read the first post again. What I see there is Stern is complaining that the government is using religious standards to evaluate content of broadcasting. His statement is not commercial. His statement is political.

Do you consider it commercial because he is paid to state his opinions?

 

[dischord]

TimRB: The electromagnetic spectrum is public property. It belongs to the people, and you have no more right to use it any way you want to than you have to build hamburger stands on BLM land.

Your position depends on the following circular argument: The regulation is OK because the government has declared the airwaves to be public property, which it did because it thought they needed regulation. I realize you didn't actually state this circular argument (you stated only the first half), but it is behind your position.

In any event, the government role in the airwaves originates in needs more akin to property rights. Two or more competing programs cannot use the same frequency in the same geographical area without trouble just like two or more competing people cannot claim the same property without trouble. Therefore, the government became the controller and recorder of who gets to use which frequencies where.

Thus the government's role should be no more than its role in recording and protecting my property rights. Enforcing decency standards is a step beyond that legitimate role.

*****
On the initial post: Though I disagree with the FCC enforcing decency standards, the facts as presented are wrong. Stern is being fined for unleashing a long string of obcenities (albeit beeped out) while criticizing a Senator (from New Mexico, IIRC).

 

[rauchman]

dischord,

I may be very wrong here, but coming into work this morning, while listening to the biggest news radio station around here (1010WINS), they played a clip from Stern's show, and in it he did not use any form of profanity. All that the radio played was the clip where he stated that within 20 years this country will be a religious state. Whether or not they omitted other parts of Stern's dialog that the FCC is after him for, I don't know. They did make mention that this was a new round of decency infractions that the FCC was going after Stern for.

 

[Harry Tuttle]

FCC Plans New Round of Indecency Fines Targeting Broadcasters, Stern


Fri Mar 5, 4:05 AM ET

NEW YORK -- Amid a widening and increasingly politicized campaign to clean up the nation's airwaves, regulators are proposing fines against many of the nation's major radio companies for carrying well-known "shock jocks," Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites) officials told The Wall Street Journal.

About a dozen cases are being finalized, these officials said, and one target is Howard Stern, one of the nation's most popular and controversial radio hosts. The FCC (news - web sites) is deciding on penalties against his employer, Viacom Inc. (NYSE:VIA - News)'s Infinity Broadcasting. Also facing further scrutiny are Emmis Communications Inc. and Clear Channel Communications Inc. (NYSE:CCU - News) , the nation's largest radio owner, which last week took Mr. Stern's show off six of its radio stations and fired a controversial -- and oft-fined -- Tampa, Fla., radio host, Todd Clem, known as "Bubba the Love Sponge."

Bowing to public pressure, the agency also plans to reverse its earlier finding that singer Bono's use of a vulgarity on live television during the 2003 Golden Globes broadcast wasn't indecent, possibly as soon as next week, officials said. However, it won't impose what could have been a multimillion- dollar fine against General Electric Co. (NYSE:GE - News)'s NBC network, which carried the event, or its affiliates.

The flurry of new cases is the latest sign of a sweeping federal crackdown on controversial content beamed over television and radio airwaves. Congress has held a spate of hearings in the last two months to decry what some legislators call a "race to the bottom" by broadcasters. While a move to act against questionable material had been under way before, it was ignited by this year's Super Bowl broadcast, in which entertainer Janet Jackson's breast was exposed during the halftime show to the embarrassment of broadcaster CBS, a Viacom unit, its affiliates and the FCC.

Feeding the push is an increasingly charged, and polarized, political atmosphere in which cultural issues such as obscenity and gay marriage have become hot topics as the general election campaign heats up. Lawmakers of both parties have been implicitly and in some cases openly threatening legislative action if regulators don't step up their enforcement of existing decency standards.

Wall Street Journal Staff Reporters Anne Marie Squeo and Joe Flint contributed to this report.

 

[Treylis]

Thus the government's role should be no more than its role in recording and protecting my property rights. Enforcing decency standards is a step beyond that legitimate role.

Completely in agreement.

When you give bureacracies the power to control something, they're not going to just sit there and not use that power. Not to mention they'll do everything to expand their sphere of influence.

 

[fix]

Howard Stern's biggest gripe is that Clear Channel kicked him off. Boohoo! Howard Stern has the right to say whatever he wants and the FCC should probably stay out of it, but Clear Channel has the right to bounce him anytime they want. The right to say what you want does not equal the right to broadcast it using someone else's equipment.