|
ConfusedUs
|
I'm not sure how many of you have been tracking this, but in recent weeks Howard Sten has been censored and then forced off the air because of his scandalous radio show. Roger Ebert wrote a pretty good article outlining his view on the matter. http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/...dt-ebert16.htmlA few highlights include: You don't have to listen to Stern. Exercising the same freedom, I am Limbaugh-free. And please don't tell me that Stern must be fined and driven off the radio because he uses the ''public airwaves.'' If they are public, then his listeners are the public, and we want to listen to him on our airwaves. The public airwaves cannot be held hostage to a small segment that wants to decide what the rest of us can hear -- especially now that President Bush supports consolidating more and more media outlets into a few rich hands. and But what if a child should tune in? Call me old-fashioned, but I believe it is the responsibility of parents to control their children's media input. The entire nation cannot be held hostage so that everything on the radio is suitable for 9-year-olds. Nor do I know of any children who want to listen to Stern, anyway; they prefer music. I completely agree with the entire article, and with the above two quotes in particular. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
I get sick of people twisting the First Amendment in this fashion. Where did the Founding Fathers ever use Stern's kind of language in a constitutional document or essay? Please show me an example. The fact is for decades that kind of language was considered unacceptable for public medium. If anything the First Amendment has been eroded by people like the ACLU and Stern screaming bloody murder and censorship for the last 40 years. This kind of rubbish language could not be broadcast 50 years ago, nor was it printed in news media 100 years ago, and nobody's rights were infringed by it then.
I don't see where protecting a little bit of public decency is trampling on the freedom of expression like he's whining about either. Content should be controlled, ideas should not. The First Amendment's protection of the freedom of expression means you are free to express ideas and political dissent. Nowhere does it grant a right for someone to streak naked down the street or say the F word all over the news papers or other public mediums in order to get the point across. Colonial America had no such rights under British rule. You were guilty of sedition and treason if you even spoke out against the King or dissented with his rule, and the First Amendment was written to prevent laws from being enacted like that ever again. The meaning of this amendment has been completely subverted to mean something else by people like Stern, and now people no longer remember why it is so important.
Stern uses shock to get attention, and so does Limbaugh. The difference is one does it in a crude and vulgar manner, the other uses ideological jabs. Limbaugh I can respect, even if I disagree with him. Stern I cannot bring myself to respect. If he wants to get a point across he can grow up and crawl out of the sewer to do it. Otherwise he has nothing to say that I want to hear. Sure, I can always switch off the dial, but having to switch the dial off to avoid it is an infringement on MY rights, that is, if I had any under your laws, which we birds do not. I also find the concept that his choice of vocabulary should be considered protected by a constitutional amendment that was never written for that purpose extremely revolting. It was written for nobler aims than this.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
  I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Woodsman
|
While im not in favor of censorship i have to say i really think Stern's constant claims that his recent troubles are a result of some right wing conspiracy by the bush administration is just nonesense. Hes in trouble because of the fact that he couldnt keep his trashy low brow mouth shut at a time when it would make him a liability to his sponsors. ( so soon after the janet jackson superbowl thing)
Comparing stern to Rush limbaugh is riduclus because they are controversial in two completely diffrent ways. Limbaugh is controversial because his opionions varrie tremendously from the rest of the main stream media. Stern is controversial for being a potty mouth. If you caught Limbaugh using terms like "cunt" and "cocksucker" he would recieve the same treatment.
Ive had many good laughs listening to stern over the years but hes not a victim he just stands to make alot of money by claiming he is. A few years from now he will write another pointless book only this time it will be about his struggle against a fictional conspiracy of rightwingers when really his only struggle is that radio stations are tired of taking complaints about his foul mouth. (yes i know that sounds wierd coming from me) This is not a free speach issue Stern will be able to say what ever he wants but he wont be able to say it on the air if it dosent make money for the radio industry. its that simple.
Oh and while where on the subject id just like to say that John Romero is a shit eating fudge packing tea bagging black plauge infested cum bubble on a gookers twat.
Now if this post gets deleated i will have brought it on myself. It wont be the result of a conspiracy.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Devlar
|
They aren't twisting anything, you simply are not able to understand the purpose of freedom of speech in the first place
"Freedom of speech cannot be limited without being lost."
"The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government and to protect its free expression should be our first object." - Thomas Jefferson
"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others." - Thomas Jefferson
"The right to hold one's own views, and to think and to decide for oneself on any question, is an essential right for a free people. A person is free to believe anything he wishes, even if in error, and may not be persecuted nor denied the right to hold public office for those beliefs. The First Amendment protections for freedom of religion, of speech, of the press and of assembly, all together protect the Freedom of Conscience." - Thomas Jefferson
"The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable." - James Madison
"I may disagree with everything that you say, but I shall defend to the death you're right to say it." - Voltaire (not really a founding father but a close friend of Madison)
Think what you like, I could care less, but in this case you are just horribly wrong and should relearn your colonial history
Now a fine reminder for the religious zealots after Stern
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech." - Benjamin Franklin
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2004-04-17, 09:24 by Devlar »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodsman
|
Strangely left out of Devlar's quotes is the actual first amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
well he had it there but i thought it would be nice to have it cleanly presented outside of a quote.
and just because i love it.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2004-04-17, 09:36 by Woodsman »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Devlar
|
EDIT: Woodsman, I love that second one too ^__^ I also don't doubt that if Jefferson saw the rise of the religous nutbars trying to dictate policy from the bible he would have stopped I think I understand the purpose of free speech just fine, and quoting something Jefferson said to Madison proves absolutely nothing here. The burden of proof lies with you, I've made the case, you've said... well.. nothing really No argument with no proof to back it up |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2004-04-17, 09:37 by Devlar »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Devlar
|
All that does is show what sickly condition freedom of speech was in 40 years ago nothing more
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Devlar
|
No, since there was no legal issues involved
You may have been shunned for what you say back then but no one was going to shove Uncle Sam up your rectum with "Decency" laws drafted by a bunch of old white guys who are currently on their 3rd wife and occationally get caught with hookers or procreating with their servants
If people really found that much wrong with what Stern has to say they'd shun him and his show, and you know as well as I do that they aren't going to do that. It's part of that whole "if you don't like it, turn it off". I don't listen to Stern, and for the most part I don't even watch TV since I consider it either propaganda or mindless consumerism. But you know what? I don't really care if it is. You determine the environment you live in, if you lack self control, then get counciling since you are likely to fall into a much greater pit of alcoholism or some other compulsive behavior
I am not allowed nor is any government agency allowed to tell people what they can or cannot see. I may tell people that they should read more books, but I will not turn off their TV sets while holding a gun to their heads. That is essencially exactly what this administration wants to do
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Devlar
|
They aren't twisting anything, you simply are not able to understand the purpose of freedom of speech in the first place Devlar, I am going to tell you right now that I have had enough of your insults. If you have a point to make then make it, but if you can't do it without insulting someone's intelligence or acting in a demeaning fashion then we don't need you posting on our forums. ConfusedUs, Lilazzkicker, myself, and several regulars in CC are getting a bit tired of your attitude and condescending nature. One more personal attack or insult from you toward ANYONE and you lose your posting rights there. I don't care if I'm dead wrong in my opinion or interpretation of something. Calling me or anyone else an idiot publicly is not acceptible on this board, no matter how much you try to make it look passable. If you don't like it, tough. It's our board. Deal with it, or go away. I don't care either way. I'm forwarding this to the other moderators as well.Its good to know that if you can't back up your opinion you'll turn to this If you want to ban me then do so, cya later |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
I am not allowed nor is any government agency allowed to tell people what they can or cannot see. I may tell people that they should read more books, but I will not turn off their TV sets while holding a gun to their heads. That is essencially exactly what this administration wants to do If people want to see XXX rated films in the privacy of their own homes fine, that's their choice, however forcing it on the public is where I draw the line. If people like Stern and Flynt had their way you'd see XXX on 24/7 on all broadcast channels. Do you allow one person's expression infringe on another's right to not have to see it? What about people blaring loud music at 3 am? Isn't that their right of expression? What about those who want to sleep and not have to hear it? What about their rights? That is what this is about. It is about the rights of those who do not want to have this stuff shoved down their throat everywhere they go. Nobody's saying it's illegal to write or say the F word or look at nude pictures or sex acts, but there is a place for that as well as places where it does not belong.
Edit: I sent that message after you posted that initial insult. Since you chose to make it public, then I will respond publicly as well. I've asked you to play nice and play by the rules, nothing more, nothing less. This has nothing to do with whether I'm right or wrong, nor is it about winning arguments. You know full well what you do, and you have been warned several times about this in the past and not just by me. If you can't make your arguments without resorting to insults and personal attacks, so be it, and good riddance. If this is your way of "gotcha last", that's also your decision, but your attempt at undermining my credibility by posting the contents of a private message is a dismal failure. You can portray me as a bully and make digs on the way out of you want, but know that if I wanted to just shut you up I could have just banned your account and have been done with it. At least I showed some respect toward you and had the decency to warn you privately instead of plastering it all over the boards. It seems you are only willing to make an argument if you're allowed to belittle people in the process.
Dialogue and discussion is always permitted here, and always will be. You have always been free to form an opinion, and I have no interfered with that in any way, shape, or form in the past, nor have I done so now. Anyone with eyes to see knows this, and nobody has ever been kicked off this board for an opinion, only for very bad behavior. If you don't want to be party to this forum voluntarily, that is your choice and your choice alone. If you choose to abide by the rules, then you are free to post. It's really that simple. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2004-04-17, 10:32 by Phoenix »
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Hedhunta
|
imo, freedom of speech should be absolute, we dealt with this not too long ago in governemt class, anyone remember skokie? a predominantly jewish town, a small splinter faction of NAZI's wanted to march and hold a rally there.... unfortunately i cant remember the entire thing.. so go rent the movie and watch it.. even though i dont agree with nazi's in any way, i still beleive they were within their rights to march wherever the hell they want, and say whatever the hell they want, so long as its not PHYSICALLY hurting someone, dont bring any of the emotional torture into this, it cant be proved.
thats just my opinion, freedom of speech should be absolute, if you dont wanna hear it, walk away, turn it off. its not that difficult really... everyone just wants to point fingers and make up new bullshit rules and its pretty obvious this country as a whole is going down the shitter reallllll quick... idc what you say, you wanna bring up history? history foretells that its always the undesirables that are silenced first, once the govt can silence one group... they can systematically silence everyone that speaks out against them.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Woodsman
|
i think the real issue is whether or not stern's right to free speach was actually violated. Its not like congress voted to take him off the air.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Angst
Rabid Doomer
Team Member
Elite
  
Posts: 1011
|
This isn't some grand scheme, it's ridiculously simple and has been blown WAY out of proportion.
The FCC slapped Stern's producer on the wrist, his producer pulled him off the air, and he's bitching about having been censored. The same thing happened to Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh, to name a couple on the other side of the fence. If a producer drops your show, it doesn't mean you've been censored, it means, somehow, you failed. End of story.
As for the article, it's politically skewed as well. You can't claim to support the views of the opposition and then rip into the opposition's political views while relying on slander and delusional assumptions.
THAT is my problem with most liberals I've dealt with, but that is also off-topic.
Stern's complaint is reasonably legitimate, he lost his job. He's been hanging by a thread for YEARS. And he's been fired before. As such, he's allowed to be angry and distraught, but get over it and stop trying to paint yourself as a martyr.
edit:
And to clarify Stern's rights in this case. The FCC regulates the usage of the public airwaves just as it's Wirehead's job to moderate the forums. It is a CONTROLLED medium. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are limited on the television, and on the radio. You can say what you want in person, but you cannot BROADCAST it on a regulated medium.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2004-04-17, 20:15 by Angst »
|
Logged
|
"Who says a chainsaw isn't a ranged weapon?"
|
|
|
|
Hedhunta
|
i stand corrected then, i did not realise it was under a moderated medium.. my opinion still stands, but seeing as he was put off the air by an already moderated medium, he obviously broke the rules which were probably clearely spelled out to him..
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
