It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should Stern have been fined/taken off the air?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Just wondering if anyone really thinks he should have.

It basically boils down to a few things:

1. It is not like the listeners of his show do not know what they're getting into; it is what makes him popular.

2. The 1st Amendment.

The quote on Howard Stern's web site says


"If there is a bedrock principal of the first amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

Justice William J Brennan
Texas VS Johnson 1989



Another quote I found on my own, from the same case


Government does not have the right to prohibit expression, nor
the right to enforce its views on its citizens.

-Justice Viveiros



Is there anyone who thinks the FCC fines and his subsequent removal from some stations is justified?


[Edited on 10-4-2004 by Cutwolf]




posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 05:54 PM
link   

...expression of an idea...


This does not cover obscenties and vulgarities.
Cya' Howey.


seekerof



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I think Stern is just Vulgar and Disgusting, i vote they remove him.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Read the second quote, seeker.

And also, even if you find someone disgusting doesn't mean everyone else should be punished. You don't rule the world. If you don't like what he says and how he says it, its simple: change the station.

His 9 million listeners know good and well what they're getting.

I find religious radio stations offensive. Take them off the air please.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 06:06 PM
link   
I'm going to ask the same question I asked on the other 'like' thread.....
Is Clear Channel and Infinity privately owned?


seekerof



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 06:06 PM
link   
What some may view as vulgar and disgusting in one context may not necessarily apply if taken in another. Some may think something is vulgar and disgusting in a sick way, others may think it's vulgar and disgusting in humerous way, etc.

No one is forcing you to listen to Stern's program, and I feel it is my civil right to make the decision to listen (or watch on E!) or not to listen. I do not need the government telling me what is acceptable material, I have my own values and morals that can dictate this for me.

Howard Stern is relatively popular and by taking him off of the air (privately done I know) under heavy penalization from the FCC, you are infringing upon the civil rights of those who listen. I would argue that Howard Sterns show is protected by the First Amendment.

*EDIT: If I were President, the FCC would be one of the first commissions to be privatized.

[Edited on 4-10-2004 by insite]



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 06:10 PM
link   

I'm going to ask the same question I asked on the other 'like' thread.....
Is Clear Channel and Infinity privately owned?


seekerof



Irrelevant. The massive fines basically forced Clear Channel and Infinity to take him off the air. It was basically the FCC's way of saying "hey, we can't legally tell him to close down, but we can fine them so heavily they'll have to."

Taking him off the air WAS Clear Channel's choice. They would not have made that choice, however, if it were not for the fines by the FCC. The FCC fined CC for the way one of their employees went about expressing himself. The fine itself should have been unconstitutional and, without the fine, Howard would never have been taken off the air.

[Edited on 10-4-2004 by Cutwolf]



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Thats an awesome argument insite, really and truely worthy of debate material, as such, Howey is working for a privately owned corp., in the likes of Clear Channel and Infinity.

They have the choice to remove him and made the choice to remove him.

Here's the thing with freedom of speech and your civil rights...they are guarenteed but they also must adhere to guidelines and regulations. Dude, nothing is 'free', k?

Example:
you have the right to say and do what you like here within the confines of the privately owned site of ATS, don't ya? or do ya?

There are rules and guidelines, are there not?
What happens if those rules and guidelines are broken?
Does your civil rights and so-called freedom of speech guarentee and protect your rights to the extent that you can simply spout obscenties and vulgarities within ATS and not have any type ramifications from doing so?

The same case applied and applies to Howey.
Again, I often enjoyed few of his shows but good riddance. He is simply getting the old philisophical concept of what goes around comes around.


seekerof

[Edited on 10-4-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 06:24 PM
link   
I agree with that Seeker. What you fail to mention, however, is that CC wasn't the major players in Howie's punishment. There was heavy pressure (and heavy fines, which would hurt the company) from the FCC.

CC would never have taken Howie off the air if it wasn't for the fines by the FCC.

To continue you your analogy using ATS - say I stumbled upon a top secret document and posted it on ATS. No one here would care because after all, people coming to ATS expect to see that kind of thing. However, say a government official contacted the ISP (or the owners of this site) and threatened to fine them massive amounts of cash if they didn't shut down this site. The ISP (or owners) would be forced to comply because the fines are so heavy they would seriously hurt the company (owners).

If there was no pressure/fines from the government, however, the site would never get shut down.

This is the same situation.

[Edited on 10-4-2004 by Cutwolf]



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by insite
What some may view as vulgar and disgusting in one context may not necessarily apply if taken in another. Some may think something is vulgar and disgusting in a sick way, others may think it's vulgar and disgusting in humerous way, etc.

No one is forcing you to listen to Stern's program, and I feel it is my civil right to make the decision to listen (or watch on E!) or not to listen. I do not need the government telling me what is acceptable material, I have my own values and morals that can dictate this for me.

Howard Stern is relatively popular and by taking him off of the air (privately done I know) under heavy penalization from the FCC, you are infringing upon the civil rights of those who listen. I would argue that Howard Sterns show is protected by the First Amendment.

*EDIT: If I were President, the FCC would be one of the first commissions to be privatized.

[Edited on 4-10-2004 by insite]


Agreed. I am a big boy and can decide all by myself what I want to or don't want to listen to. I do not need and nor do I want the goverment to make that decision for me.

Get rid of the FCC or like Insite said to make it private. All that FCC money could be used for the public schools so that young people can learn to make better and more informed decisions for themselves when it comes to such matters.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 06:32 PM
link   

as quoted by CutwolfTo continue you your analogy using ATS - say I stumbled upon a top secret document and posted it on ATS. No one here would care because after all, people coming to ATS expect to see that kind of thing.


Wrong. What you mention has somewhat happened, of sorts, and was noticed and was subsequently removed because of possible ramifications. I will not go into details but some here will know to what I am refering to.


seekerof

[Edited on 10-4-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   
I hate to switch topics, but if all "Top Secret" things are removed, why are we here?

Isn't this a site to spread information, as long as it was legally acquired?

For christ's sake the name of the site is Above Top Secret.I now have extreme doubt in the seriousness of purpose of this site knowing that when something real & "Top Secret" is actually posted it is removed out of fear.

AboveTopSecret (Er...well, we ARE above top secret so Top Secret things are not allowed to be posted) - deny ignorance (except, of course, if denying ignorance requires looking at factual and hard to come by information).


I'd love to hear the reasoning as to why the post was removed and what ramifications you feared (no need to get into details of the post).

[Edited on 10-4-2004 by Cutwolf]



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

as quoted by CutwolfTo continue you your analogy using ATS - say I stumbled upon a top secret document and posted it on ATS. No one here would care because after all, people coming to ATS expect to see that kind of thing.


Wrong. What you mention has happened and was noticed and was subsequently removed because of possible ramifications. I will not go into details but some here will know to what I am refering to.
seekerof


I agree with Seekerof on this part. National Security is an important thing. By putting up still-classified top secret info on this or any site, you are threatening security. Who knows what still-classified TS info could compromise...... That is the reason why people freaked out when Robert Novak name a CIA operative in his newspaper column a few months back.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 06:43 PM
link   
As I mentioned Cutwolf, and I do apologize for perhaps mentioning this, but:

I will not go into details..




seekerof



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 06:45 PM
link   
If it was honestly that Top Secret and that big of a threat to national security, a poster on ATS wouldn't have been able to get their hands on it.


OK if you won't go into details of that particular case lets play hypotheticals:

I post a Top Secret document dealing with extraterrestrial life that is proven to be true. What ramifications would you fear that would lead you to remove it?

[Edited on 10-4-2004 by Cutwolf]



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 07:14 PM
link   
LOL Seekerof, I felt schooled after your last post.

I think Clear Channel was faced with more of an economic than a social dilemma. Howard Stern has been fined more than once and those fines must have added up to more than his generated advertising revenue.

You're next point I fully agree with, In order to have rights you must relinquish rights. This applies when the offensive material/situation is overbearingly obvious and infringes upon ones rights not to experience offensive material. However, in the case of radio this balance of rights is easily accomplished through the options provided. It isn't like Staern had a monopoly over the airwaves during his slot.

As for ATS, I would have to say that it is one of the most liberal (in terms of freedom of expression) forums for discussion on the planet. The administrators are highly justified in their restrictions (hacking, pornography, drug use information), mainly because these topics are not worthy of the effort it takes to discuss them. In the case of Stern's show, you could accurately say that it reflects the opposite side of liberal discussion to this website. Whether or not his topics are worthy of discussion is up to the individual, but from an ATS point of view his show is worthless, except as an alliegence in the fight for freedom of expression. By using ATS as an example, we can clearly see that there are two different points of view on what is decent free speech (of which you and I clearly have no need to debate).

But that just brings the argument back to the fact that the FCC is fining Sterns employers. Under what circumstances I am unsure, something racist was said I think. I hate to be alarmist/extreme but the FCC should represent all opinions and not be the moral police, under this platform, even ATS is at risk. I guess it comes down to ideology. I'm not going to say whether or not I am a fan of what Stern does/says, but I will stand up for his right to say it.

[Edited on 4-10-2004 by insite]



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Stern used to be a big Bush supporter. Now he is a Bush basher. Therefore the hammer comes down. HERE
is an interesting article on how Clear Communications is in bed with the Bush administration.

[Edited on 10-4-2004 by curme]



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Howard Stern may have been pretty vulgar and what not, but now every morning when my alarm clock goes off, instead of waking up to monotonous talking about sometimes an interesting topic, I have to wake up to one of the four LINKIN PARK SONGS THAT THEY WON'T STOP PLAYING OVER AND OVER AGAIN.


I'd rather hear Howard being vulgar nonstop than hear one of those motherf***ing songs ever again



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
Stern used to be a big Bush supporter. Now he is a Bush basher. Therefore the hammer comes down. HERE
is an interesting article on how Clear Communications is in bed with the Bush administration.

[Edited on 10-4-2004 by curme]


As I said in another thread, Stern's foul mouth was fine as long as he praised Bush and the War in between his fart jokes....

I suspected a close tie, but I had no idea that GWB Jr and Clearchannel were that closely linked.
Thanks for the link.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Here is my take on the situation. This is a clear case of hypocrisy by the right wing, conservatives. They are the first ones to cry about over regulation and how the market forces should set appropriate standards. A perfect example is the Bush administration's plan to scale back the Clean Air Act and to roll back planned reductions in mercury emissions.

In this case, however, there are clear cut market forces in effect. They are called the ratings system. If a show does not have listeners, it doesn't get the ratings, and it doesn't get advertising dollars. and it doesn't stay on the air. Like it or not, Stern's show is one of the top rated shows in every market he is in. That means the majority of the listening public tunes in and listens to his show.

What this is, is a minority rule situation.

I am willing to bet that even with the half million dollar fine, Clear Channel still pulled down a hefty profit from Stern's show.

Hypocrisy




top topics



 
0

log in

join