posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 10:26 AM
Actually in the notion of commercial speech there are valid "restrictions," since the problem of putting out a defective product requires
consistency in advertising with the product itself.
Unfortunately corporations often assume limited liability with that concern of veracity important to many people. Aspartame for example established
its own regime to protect a harmful product from science. There are examples of psuedo science all around us. That is the real obscenity, but
governments like to censor sexuality because it is an area dealing with "shame, honor and loyalty," things as such in Japan for example that keep
the production line moving.
Clear channel is obviously a monopoly, a product of deregulation gone wild. Howard Stern is not being bothered because "obscenity," is corrupting
anything. He is being bothered most likely because he is on to the truth about something the central government does not want you to hear. Free
conversations unscreened for the average brainwashed Rush Limbaugh crowd, are not acceptable to the alleged government. That is especially true in a
Howard Stern ambiance, where people actually speak a few levels deeper into their entire mind, rather than their repressed rule based dogmatic so
Are we clear about this? Howard Stern is a less defective product than Rush Limbaugh since Stern deals with the deeper truth, and Limbaugh deals with
a programed less than half truth. But Limbaugh gets the gold mine, and Stern gets the shaft. Why? It is probably about money and control.
Your intelligence is insulted daily by Limbaugh, but Howard Stern insults nothing but your repressions, fixations, and phoney anxiety. You are more
likely to hear something from Howard Stern that actually saves the Republic, than anything from lumpy.