Stop FCC - controling what you listen to

[valeyard]

Oh for crying out loud am I lecturing a bunch of kids still in middle school?

They have to be younger than that, because my 14 year old is smarter than this.

The same stupid arguments over and over again. It reminds me a kid whining, "but WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Don't be naive

STERN KNEW DAMN WELL WHAT HE WAS DOING. He did this deliberately to make himself an issue over this.

Here's a lesson because I'm old enough to know. DJ'S DO THIS CHILDREN.

You think this is the first time???????

They make money that way.

That's why they call these morons "Shock jocks." Because they shock and get attention in a cheap sleazy way, and it doesn't require much intelligence to do that. So, it's a cheap, sleazy, easy way to make money on the radio.

Only this time, Mr. idiot bit off more than he could chew. He gambled he could get away with the latest shock, and he was wrong. And now the scum is whining!

But as I pointed out over and over, RADIO SHOWS HAVE A DELAY. That means what you hear OVER THE AIR, isn't real time live. It's about 7 to 10 second delay from what is actually happening. THAT'S WHY THEY ASK CALLERS TO TURN OFF THEIR RADIOS WHILE THEY ARE TALKING TO THE HOST. Because if they are listening to Stern on the radio, instead of on the phone, they are hearing what Stern said 10 seconds ago and there is a DELAY.

They do that, SO IF YOU SAY SOMETHING STUPID OR BIGOTED THEY CAN BLEEP IT OUT OR HANG UP ON YOU.

If Stern allowed that on the air, HE WANTED IT TO BE ON THE AIR. THAT MAKES HIM RESPONSIBLE.

That's how the FCC sees it. That's who Clear Channel sees it. THAT'S HOW ADULTS SEE THOSE THINGS IN THE ADULT WORLD.

"I didn't mean to" works in the childs world. It doesn't in the adult world.

Lesson two. It's STERN SHOW. There is this thing in the adult world called RESPONSIBILITY. That means Stern is RESPONSIBLE for what goes on in his show.

That's why Clear Channel dropped him. They held him responsible for his show and decided they did not want to carry it any more.

Businesses are free to do that.

Ever go to a restaurant and see a sign that says "The Management retains the right to refuse service."

That means if you act like a jerk in their establishment, they can tell you to LEAVE.

That's what Clear Channel did with Stern.

He's not a martyr. He's a jerk that was told to leave.

Now as for the FCC.

Well learn something. There is NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECTLY FREE WORLD OR SPEECH.

The first amendment was put in to protect political speech. That means criticism of the government.

That's why you can't yell fire in a theater; you can't threaten someone's life; you can't say you want to kill the president; and you can't use profanity in some places.

You try "freedom of speech" for any of those, the law will laugh in your face.

The courts will tell you right now, you can go to jail for ALL FOUR OF THOSE, and people have.

Stern is a big boy. He knew what he was going. He pushed the envelope and now he is playing the victim playing off the ignorance of listeners who haven't a clue about the law, the courts, or that document called the Constitution.

But to call this a freedom of speech issue is just ludicrous.

I'm sorry. But you guys seriously err when it comes to the idea this is free speech.

If you want to look at what chilled free speech, check out the "Fairness Doctrine" and why Ronald Reagan had it repealed.

And might I point out repleaing the Fairness Doctrine is what created the freedom to allow "shock jocks."

But if shock has to go advocating racism against people or even violence against people, the FCC can step in. They have in the past and they will in the future.

Welcome to reality.

What are we fighting for here?

The right of people to ask Howard Stern "have you ever f#ed a N-word Chick?"

Because that's the question that got Stern dropped from Clear Channel (an affiliate that only cares his program in three places).

N-word chick? The scum deserved to get dropped.

And don't say it was an accident. All talk radio shows have 10 second delays (at least) so if it got on the air, it was because Howard wanted it to.

No one censored him. The FCC never touched him. He was never fined or brought up on any charges. Clear Channel simply decided they didn't want him anymore and they are within their rights to do so, just as ANYONE in in the broadcast business can decide who they will air and who they will not. That's not censorship, that's a business choice.

1. Stern never said the dread n-word, somebody else did.

2. Stern being dropped coincided with him turning on Bush. Clear Channel's owners are big supporters of Bush. Coincidence? I think not.

3. The FCC is considering laying some fines on Stern's show.

4. The problem isn't so much that ANYONE who has a radio station can choose to play what they want, it's that there are so many radio stations in so few hands. You may recall how Clear Channel banned a shitload of songs in the wake of 9/11. When the line between governmental and private corporate power becomes blurred, it's an exercise in semantics to say that this isn't censorship.

"We paid $3 billion for these television stations. We will decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is." - Manager of a Florida TV Station owned by Rupert Murdoch, allegedly said to Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, who were fired for investigative journalism on Monsanto's bovine growth hormone.

[Harlock7876]

Sorry if someone already said something to this effect somewhere in the thread (these replies are so damn long) but.....

If you don't like it, don't watch it.

I learned that one trying to argue against hentai.

Besides, you can always move to some hard core Muslim country if you like strict moral regulations.

[valeyard]

That's not the point, for one.

Because I don't listen to it in the first place.

That's not the point. The point is what do TOLERATE as a society. And YES this is important. The Weimar Republic tolerated the Nazis and look what it led to? The Jews tolerated the first speeches of the new Chancellor in the rapidly fading Weimer Republic, soon to become Nazi Germany and look what it led to?

Bigotry doesn't hit you in the face, it starts little by little and it's main contributors are not the bigots themselves, it is the PEOPLE who facilitate the bigots by DOING NOTHING.

This is true of every attrocity and genocide committed by one people upon another. It always starts as just a few words here and there, that are ignored, tolerate, and just generally turned a blind eye to.

To ignore the public calling of women by that particular word, and to support it's airing makes one JUST AS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE USE OF THAT WORD AS THE MAN WHO SAID IT ON THE AIR.

I mean there is so much wrong with this Stern thing it would take me too long to explain it all.

But I think the thing that is most disgusting about this is the brazen COWARDICE of those who keep silent. Had this been a conservative who had facilitated such a disgusting example of racism, there would have been a call for his blood!

Where is Jesse Jackson? Where is Charles Rangel? Where is the Black Caucus?

They are all silent which disturbs me most of all. So, they will turn a blind eye to this, because Stern is using this ridiculous case of his disgusting irreponsibility as a case against Bush?

Bush might stop someone from calling a woman by the N word? Oh that bastard!

So, racism becomes okay with them, as long as he hates Bush too?

And all the Bush haters suddenly are champions of this ugly example of race baiting?

If this had been on the internet he would have been called a disgusting little race and flame baiting troll. On the radio because he talks dirty and is "cool" he's a champion of free speech??????

Do you expect ANYONE with a modicrum of intelligence to buy that?
I mean COMEON.

You can't be so cowardly as to turn your backs, refuse to think and all say "yeah, but he's cool and funny, and we all just want to be cool."

Sorry if someone already said something to this effect somewhere in the thread (these replies are so damn long) but.....

If you don't like it, don't watch it.

I learned that one trying to argue against hentai.

Besides, you can always move to some hard core Muslim country if you like strict moral regulations.

[Lyrs]

Besides, you can always move to some hard core Muslim country if you like strict moral regulations.

that's gotta be one of the stupidest thing i've read in this thread. why go to some foreign country for just that? there's plenty of society's here in the United States that have conservative-orthhodox rules for every aspect of society.

look in your backyard for prejudices before you look over the hills.

[azulmagia]

But as I pointed out over and over, RADIO SHOWS HAVE A DELAY. That means what you hear OVER THE AIR, isn't real time live. It's about 7 to 10 second delay from what is actually happening. THAT'S WHY THEY ASK CALLERS TO TURN OFF THEIR RADIOS WHILE THEY ARE TALKING TO THE HOST. Because if they are listening to Stern on the radio, instead of on the phone, they are hearing what Stern said 10 seconds ago and there is a DELAY.

They do that, SO IF YOU SAY SOMETHING STUPID OR BIGOTED THEY CAN BLEEP IT OUT OR HANG UP ON YOU.

If Stern allowed that on the air, HE WANTED IT TO BE ON THE AIR. THAT MAKES HIM RESPONSIBLE.

That's how the FCC sees it. That's who Clear Channel sees it. THAT'S HOW ADULTS SEE THOSE THINGS IN THE ADULT WORLD.

And as I pointed out over and over, just because it's called "The Howard Stern Show" doesn't necessarily mean Stern has total control over the censor button. His boss (Tom Chiusano) does, via the agency of a stupid flunky! How do I know this? Because Stern has been bitching about this for several years now! If you really think, as a celebrity, you have complete control over a show or a magazine just because it's got your name on it, I advise you phone up Rosie O'Donnell and ask what happened to her! Better yet, try making a cat by putting the letters C, A and T together in the correct order!

So how about a retraction on that allegation? The FCC is run by a child, BTW. Colin Powell's child.

There is this thing in the adult world called RESPONSIBILITY. That means Stern is RESPONSIBLE for what goes on in his show.

That's why Clear Channel dropped him. They held him responsible for his show and decided they did not want to carry it any more.

Businesses are free to do that.

Ever go to a restaurant and see a sign that says "The Management retains the right to refuse service."

That means if you act like a jerk in their establishment, they can tell you to LEAVE.

How about this formulation: "There is this thing in the adult world called RESPONSIBILITY. That means the listener is responsible for turning the fucking radio off if he don't like what's on it!" Ever go to a restaurant with a sign that said "The Management retains the right to refuse service...to NEGROES!" According to some people, businesses should be free to do this, though they rarely admit it explicitly. These are the same people which had no problem with the former apartheid regime in South Africa. And most of them are Republicans. Your use of the word "responsibility" is just motherhood rhetoric designed to annihilate critical thought. Not only that, you invert the equation. Instead of the structures of society being responsible to the citizen, who is raison d'etre of the society, the citizen must exercise responibility in order not to harm the structures of society!

You want to talk about responsibilty, talk about a movie which has the line "His blood be upon us, and on our children" in (unsubtitled) Aramaic!

There is NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECTLY FREE WORLD OR SPEECH.

The first amendment was put in to protect political speech. That means criticism of the government.

That's why you can't yell fire in a theater; you can't threaten someone's life; you can't say you want to kill the president; and you can't use profanity in some places.

You try "freedom of speech" for any of those, the law will laugh in your face.

Unless the President is Clinton and the threatener is Jesse Helms! The first amendment is working fantastically right now, isn't it? Especially since the Patriot Act. And just what is political speech anyway? Some say corrupting the legislature via massive amounts of cash is free, political, speech. And why don't you prove Stern is a racist first, or, alternatively drop the allegation!? Cause I listened to his show as long it was on the air in Toronto and I never got that idea! How about going after the real racists? How about no, because you're a guy who really has guilt feelings about having his mind in the gutter so he tries to deprive everyone else of having fun.

If you're so well informed about Stern, riddle me these:

a) How many times, pre-2004, was Stern fined by the FCC?

b) What topic was Stern talking about with Robin back in the day (not in 2004) when the FCC leveled a million dollar fine?

c) What was Stern talking about, back in the day, when the 1.7 million dollar fine was levelled?

d) Who complained to the FCC about Stern that led to these fines?

If you want to look at what chilled free speech, check out the "Fairness Doctrine" and why Ronald Reagan had it repealed.

And might I point out repleaing the Fairness Doctrine is what created the freedom to allow "shock jocks."

But if shock has to go advocating racism against people or even violence against people, the FCC can step in. They have in the past and they will in the future.

The Fairness Doctrine was actually a pretty good idea, and Reagan had less to do with it being pulled than that religious fanatic Scalia. The broadcast frequencies belong to the public, man. You clearly have no conception of what free speech is. It's not a nicety, it's a functional necessity in a genuine democracy. That means if, in the public interest, yelling fire in a theatre can be banned, then, also in the public interest, anti-tobacco ads can be required so that both sides of the story be required.

And since you argue in favour of overt censorship, it's pure hypocrisy to be an implicit apologist for the "free speech" rights of poisoning, land raping, welfare baby corporations!

The same stupid arguments over and over again. It reminds me a kid whining, "but WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!"

That would apply to you more than I, bucko.

[valeyard]

It's HIS show!

If you want to be stupid enough to believe that crap be my guest.

He knew exactly what he is doing. If Stern had no control over that show they would be going after someone else. They aren't, because they know it's BS. Just because Stern can get YOU to believe that crap, doesn't mean the FCC will buy it OR Clear Channel.

Why do you think NO ONE else is buying that beside's Stern's listeners?

Does the light go on yet?

And it isn't because everyone else is just mean. It's because in the adult world there is always someone that has to take the responsibility.

Had an accident once. Car went out of control, slid on the ice. You know what. I WAS STILL CONSIDERED RESPONSIBLE. Like I said, "I didn't mean to" doesn't cut it in the adult world, only in kiddie land.

Even if Stern didn't "mean to" there is still something called CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE. That means someone being IRRESPONSIBLE.

That means even if you weren't responsible, you can still be held responsible, if you SHOULD have been responsible. Welcome to a cold cruel world.

And might I point out that your whole free speech argument falls to pieces if Stern is NOT RESPONSIBLE?

If you were old enough to figure you this out, you would realize how dumb the whole thing is.

Let me take you through this slowly.

If this was an accident, THEN IT ISN'T ABOUT FREE SPEECH, IS IT? Free speech is something done deliberately and with full knowledge of what is being said.

Like "Give me liberty or give me death." You get that?

If it was an accident, then it's "Ooops, I'm terribly sorry," and we all say okay Stern, do something to fix this NOW.

IF IT IS DELIBERATE, then it is about free speech, BUT THERE GOES THE CRAP, COMPLETELY PHONY ARGUMENT IT WAS AN ACCIDENT.

In other words, Stern can't have this both ways. He can't say he is a martyr for free speech, ON SOMETHING HE SUPPOSEDLY DIDN'T MEAN TO HAVE SAID!

I mean PUHLEASE!

He can't say it was an accident, for something he DIDN'T Mean to have said.

"oh sorry, I didn't mean to say give me liberty or give me death!"

Huh? What?

It doesn't work.

I'm sorry but Stern's story doesn't work. He's trying to have it both ways. Trying to say he is a martyr for free speech, while at the same time claiming he isn't responsible for it being said!

That just doesn't wash. It wouldn't hold up in any court in the land, I'm sorry. They'd laugh him out of court.

Think, huh, and quit using the same arguments I already shot down.

It's crap, his whole argument. Learn to recognize crap when you see it. It will save you from a lot of the cons that come along in life.

Just a little advice.

But for pity sake, don't fall for the lies of someone's who's only evidence of character is, sleeze, or I mean being a "shock jock."

You ever hear the biblical addage, "by their fruits you shall know them?"

Think about it!

But as I pointed out over and over, RADIO SHOWS HAVE A DELAY. That means what you hear OVER THE AIR, isn't real time live. It's about 7 to 10 second delay from what is actually happening. THAT'S WHY THEY ASK CALLERS TO TURN OFF THEIR RADIOS WHILE THEY ARE TALKING TO THE HOST. Because if they are listening to Stern on the radio, instead of on the phone, they are hearing what Stern said 10 seconds ago and there is a DELAY.

They do that, SO IF YOU SAY SOMETHING STUPID OR BIGOTED THEY CAN BLEEP IT OUT OR HANG UP ON YOU.

If Stern allowed that on the air, HE WANTED IT TO BE ON THE AIR. THAT MAKES HIM RESPONSIBLE.

That's how the FCC sees it. That's who Clear Channel sees it. THAT'S HOW ADULTS SEE THOSE THINGS IN THE ADULT WORLD.

And as I pointed out over and over, just because it's called "The Howard Stern Show" doesn't necessarily mean Stern has total control over the censor button. His boss (Tom Chiusano) does, via the agency of a stupid flunky! How do I know this? Because Stern has been bitching about this for several years now! If you really think, as a celebrity, you have complete control over a show or a magazine just because it's got your name on it, I advise you phone up Rosie O'Donnell and ask what happened to her! Better yet, try making a cat by putting the letters C, A and T together in the correct order!

So how about a retraction on that allegation? The FCC is run by a child, BTW. Colin Powell's child.

There is this thing in the adult world called RESPONSIBILITY. That means Stern is RESPONSIBLE for what goes on in his show.

That's why Clear Channel dropped him. They held him responsible for his show and decided they did not want to carry it any more.

Businesses are free to do that.

Ever go to a restaurant and see a sign that says "The Management retains the right to refuse service."

That means if you act like a jerk in their establishment, they can tell you to LEAVE.

How about this formulation: "There is this thing in the adult world called RESPONSIBILITY. That means the listener is responsible for turning the fucking radio off if he don't like what's on it!" Ever go to a restaurant with a sign that said "The Management retains the right to refuse service...to NEGROES!" According to some people, businesses should be free to do this, though they rarely admit it explicitly. These are the same people which had no problem with the former apartheid regime in South Africa. And most of them are Republicans. Your use of the word "responsibility" is just motherhood rhetoric designed to annihilate critical thought. Not only that, you invert the equation. Instead of the structures of society being responsible to the citizen, who is raison d'etre of the society, the citizen must exercise responibility in order not to harm the structures of society!

You want to talk about responsibilty, talk about a movie which has the line "His blood be upon us, and on our children" in (unsubtitled) Aramaic!

There is NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECTLY FREE WORLD OR SPEECH.

The first amendment was put in to protect political speech. That means criticism of the government.

That's why you can't yell fire in a theater; you can't threaten someone's life; you can't say you want to kill the president; and you can't use profanity in some places.

You try "freedom of speech" for any of those, the law will laugh in your face.

Unless the President is Clinton and the threatener is Jesse Helms! The first amendment is working fantastically right now, isn't it? Especially since the Patriot Act. And just what is political speech anyway? Some say corrupting the legislature via massive amounts of cash is free, political, speech. And why don't you prove Stern is a racist first, or, alternatively drop the allegation!? Cause I listened to his show as long it was on the air in Toronto and I never got that idea! How about going after the real racists? How about no, because you're a guy who really has guilt feelings about having his mind in the gutter so he tries to deprive everyone else of having fun.

If you're so well informed about Stern, riddle me these:

a) How many times, pre-2004, was Stern fined by the FCC?

b) What topic was Stern talking about with Robin back in the day (not in 2004) when the FCC leveled a million dollar fine?

c) What was Stern talking about, back in the day, when the 1.7 million dollar fine was levelled?

d) Who complained to the FCC about Stern that led to these fines?

If you want to look at what chilled free speech, check out the "Fairness Doctrine" and why Ronald Reagan had it repealed.

And might I point out repleaing the Fairness Doctrine is what created the freedom to allow "shock jocks."

But if shock has to go advocating racism against people or even violence against people, the FCC can step in. They have in the past and they will in the future.

The Fairness Doctrine was actually a pretty good idea, and Reagan had less to do with it being pulled than that religious fanatic Scalia. The broadcast frequencies belong to the public, man. You clearly have no conception of what free speech is. It's not a nicety, it's a functional necessity in a genuine democracy. That means if, in the public interest, yelling fire in a theatre can be banned, then, also in the public interest, anti-tobacco ads can be required so that both sides of the story be required.

And since you argue in favour of overt censorship, it's pure hypocrisy to be an implicit apologist for the "free speech" rights of poisoning, land raping, welfare baby corporations!

The same stupid arguments over and over again. It reminds me a kid whining, "but WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!"

That would apply to you more than I, bucko.

[Kai Stromler]

Dude, go back to Usenet. Stop bothering one of the parts of the internet that's still reasonably useful.

Belittling opponents, ducking questions (I didn't see a single coherent response to any one of azulmagia's points a-d), posting the previous post en bloc without snipping (in order to make people get sick of reading it and miss the fallacies)....these are classic Usenet troll tactics of argument by intimidation.

Asking someone like you to respond intelligently is a waste of time, but if the mods don't lock this thread (as it has descended from real debate into pointless flamage), please study the history of Weimar Germany more carefully before making your next post. From 1923 to 1927, it was as illegal to profess National Socialism there as it is today, and yet the Nazis managed to grow in strength and influence through that entire timespan.

The point persists. Repression and sanctions will not solve any social problem any more than putting duct tape over a tumor will make a cancer go away. All they will do is push it out of sight until it is too malignant to be ignored.

To those who don't frequent Usenet: the way to deal with this idiot is unfortunately, to stop replying to this thread. Yes, it'll look like he won the argument, but really....we've got better things to do than waste our time on this thread.

Go ahead, valeyard. Here's the stick, and the horse is lying right there on the ground. If you want to break with tradition and post a reasoned response to any of the points people arguing against you have made so far, you may even get a response. Otherwise, whack away to your heart's content.

--K

[valeyard]

Okay this is funny, because he says don't belittle opponents, which is EXACTLY what he is doing with his usenet crack

Then talks about repression while threatening that I might be banned for MY SPEECH, Ha ha ha

Can we say double standard?

And excuse me but the National Socialist party was quite active in the Weimar Republic. Besides that, you don't even know what you are talking about.

Hitler wan't made Chancellor in the 20s. He was still in prison some of that time. He was made Chancellor in 1933. What were you saying about history?

We aren't talking about the Weimar Republic when it was strong. We are talking about WHAT TOPPLED IT and allowed Hitler to become Chancellor (The Weimar Republic ended for all extensive purposes not in 1922, but 1932/33). And it was the average citizen simply looking the other way, that expedited the fall of the Weimar Republic and the Nazis coming to power.

And as to what the Nazi party being illegal in the 1920s has to do with this argument I fail to see.

The point is, the average German in the 1930s was quite content to look the other way. It did not START with Crystal Nacht. It started with the speech here and the speech there.

But leaving the Weimar Republic asside.

But, it still boils down to who is responsible for Stern's show. If we believe Stern is not responsible for Stern's show, then WHO IS?

And it still boils down to Stern cannot have it both ways. He can't say it was not deliberate and then pretend it a free speech issue.

Free speech is not "accidental." He either meant it to happen or he didn't.

If he didn't mean it to happen, then he just apologizes and the show takes a few hits of criticism and it's forgotten about.

OBVIOUSLY, if Stern is not content to do that, and is willing to take the full damage that he is DELIBERATELY bringing on himself (and believe me even the most niave can see this is deliberate), he did this deliberately and hopes to GAIN something from it.

He certainly has gained the loyalty of listeners who can't tell they are being conned.

It isn't the first time a DJ stirred up controversy just to get more listeners. That's what shock jocks and sleazy reality shows (on tv) do. They stir up controversy.

So which is this? A mistake or deliberate?

Either way, it makes a bad free speech case. If deliberate, then Stern has to admit he deliberately used racial epitaphs on the air. If an accident, then it's an accident and not a free speech case.

Simple as that.

Now if it's "talking down" to lay out the facts, then I'm sorry, facts are facts.

I don't buy Stern's story. He's hiding behind this "I can't help what callers say" when he knows damn well he can. He doesn't have a cough or pause button? BS! Every DJ does!

If it's talking down to point out a con when I see a con, then so be it.

Dude, go back to Usenet. Stop bothering one of the parts of the internet that's still reasonably useful.

Belittling opponents, ducking questions (I didn't see a single coherent response to any one of azulmagia's points a-d), posting the previous post en bloc without snipping (in order to make people get sick of reading it and miss the fallacies)....these are classic Usenet troll tactics of argument by intimidation.

Asking someone like you to respond intelligently is a waste of time, but if the mods don't lock this thread (as it has descended from real debate into pointless flamage), please study the history of Weimar Germany more carefully before making your next post. From 1923 to 1927, it was as illegal to profess National Socialism there as it is today, and yet the Nazis managed to grow in strength and influence through that entire timespan.

The point persists. Repression and sanctions will not solve any social problem any more than putting duct tape over a tumor will make a cancer go away. All they will do is push it out of sight until it is too malignant to be ignored.

To those who don't frequent Usenet: the way to deal with this idiot is unfortunately, to stop replying to this thread. Yes, it'll look like he won the argument, but really....we've got better things to do than waste our time on this thread.

Go ahead, valeyard. Here's the stick, and the horse is lying right there on the ground. If you want to break with tradition and post a reasoned response to any of the points people arguing against you have made so far, you may even get a response. Otherwise, whack away to your heart's content.

--K

[Kai Stromler]

And excuse me but the National Socialist party was quite active in the Weimar Republic. Besides that, you don't even know what you are talking about.

Hitler wan't made Chancellor in the 20s. He was still in prison some of that time. He was made Chancellor in 1933. What were you saying about history?

We aren't talking about the Weimar Republic when it was strong. We are talking about WHAT TOPPLED IT and allowed Hitler to become Chancellor (The Weimar Republic ended for all extensive purposes not in 1922, but 1932/33). And it was the average citizen simply looking the other way, that expedited the fall of the Weimar Republic and the Nazis coming to power.

I wrote my undergrad thesis on the evolution of National Socialist thought and its relationship to German identity 1907-1933, 1945-present. My degree in Germanic studies allows me to pretend that I'm mildly qualified.

Yes, the Nazis were extremely active in Weimar. However, when the Beer Hall Putsch failed in 1923, Hitler went to prison, and the party was banned. It was forced off the election rolls, and the SA were forbidden to wear their uniforms. And yet they continued to march, even shirtless, as a demonstration of the inefficacy of government repression.

By 1927, the Nazi party had shed its violent-revolutionary image and was re-admitted, building up electoral strength by consistently and shamelessly lying about what their platform was and what they stood for. They pushed one set of aims in urban districts to take votes from the Communists and SPD/UPD, and a different set of aims in rural areas to win votes from the clerical and center parties. And always, always, they sold themselves as a protest vote against 'the system', against the Versailles treaty that even those who composed the government that signed it called an insult to German sovereignty.

Enter the crash of 1929, and the accompanying impoverishment and radicalization of the middle classes. In other nations, they turned to the communists, but the KPD followed the line of the International more strictly than anywhere else in the world, and still called them class enemies. There was only one revolutionary party that would have them, and they were wearing swaztikas.

It should also be noted that the elections of 1930, 1931, 1932, and 1932 (that's not a dupe in the last one), once the Nazis started making massive gains in seating and voteshare in the '30 elections, were among the most hotly contested in the history of the republic. Five mass parties (Center, SPD, UPD, NSDAP, KPD), including two opposed revolutionary movements (the Nazis and the Communists), battled tooth and nail for every available vote, attempted to form coalitions once the election was over, and watched those coalitions collapse as another election was inevitably called for. With the constant changes of government, and incessant streetfighting between the SA, Red Banner, and socialist formations, it's not too much of a stretch to argue that Germany was in as much of a state of civil war 1930-1932 as it was in 1918-1919 when the Freikorps were running around fighting infantry battles with the local soviets.

Furthermore, there was a deliberate goal to the accelerated pace of election campaigns. The interests of the Center and socialist parties wished to economically break the revolutionary parties, especially the NSDAP, which did not have access to industrial-scale sources of political donations. It worked. In the second election of 1932, Nazi voteshare slipped back to 30% from 33%; given the triumphalism of Nazi propaganda to that date, the next election cycle would have most likely seen its compltete disappearance from the scene of relevant political discourse.

Unfortunately, more people voted Red than the Center interests were comfortable with. The Center could form a government that would stick if they secured the support of the Nazis; if not, an alliance between either of the socialist parties and the KPD would be able to at least call yet another election if not form a government on their own hook. Hitler's price for the Nazis' support was the Chancellorship, which he took in January 1933. Nobody outside of the Nazi inner circle expected him to be more than a figurehead. Then, of course, somebody set the Reichstag on fire, and the resulting state of emergency dropped the scales off the eyes of a lot of political observers...most of whom then headed for the border with their mouths full of crow.

It's ludicrous to think that the average German simply looked the other way and let this happen. Persistent street battles, constant electioneering, parades by Reds and brownshirts, stump speaking on a scale not imaginable today...the average German could hardly *escape* the political discourse surrounding the future of their nation, and the role of this mustachioed Bavarian and the thugs he commanded in it.

After the Nazi takeover, though, people did indeed look the other way. That's how fascism works. The populace learns not to object to violence offered by the state against others, for fear that that violence will be applied to *them*. (If you change 'violence' to 'censorship' in that last sentence...... )

And as to what the Nazi party being illegal in the 1920s has to do with this argument I fail to see.

Me neither. Who first brought the Nazi comparisons into this thread again? I wasn't suggesting that you be banned; it's just that the mods have a habit of locking threads, like this one, that go off topic.

--K

[azulmagia]

Belittling opponents, ducking questions (I didn't see a single coherent response to any one of azulmagia's points a-d), posting the previous post en bloc without snipping (in order to make people get sick of reading it and miss the fallacies)....these are classic Usenet troll tactics of argument by intimidation.

True...but I'm gonna give pwning this stone one more shot before I throw my hands up in disgust...

It's HIS show! If you want to be stupid enough to believe that crap be my guest.

It's HIS show in the sense that he's the host. Does he own the radio station? No. Does he have a boss? Several - Mel Karmazin, Tom Chiusano, others I don't know the names of. That means, especially in light of past troubles from the FCC, that Stern does not have final control over the damned censor button. Does the light go on yet?

Had an accident once. Car went out of control, slid on the ice. You know what. I WAS STILL CONSIDERED RESPONSIBLE. Like I said, "I didn't mean to" doesn't cut it in the adult world, only in kiddie land.

Even if Stern didn't "mean to" there is still something called CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE. That means someone being IRRESPONSIBLE.

That means even if you weren't responsible, you can still be held responsible, if you SHOULD have been responsible. Welcome to a cold cruel world.

And might I point out that your whole free speech argument falls to pieces if Stern is NOT RESPONSIBLE?

You're confounding the defense of Stern doing toilet-orientated humour and Carlin & Lenny Bruce (even Jackie Mason) style politcally incorrect ethnic humour with a caller who used the word "nigger" on the air. Your entire argument falls to pieces when it's realised that the entire issue with the caller was most likely a pretext to get rid of Stern for other, political, reasons. Reasons you have no cause to argue with since you say "Businesses are free to do that." The official reason is such nonsense that the probable true reason is political - Stern was going after Bush, Clear Channel's great white hope. Clear Channel dropped him. Investment protected, or so they figured. End of story. And don't play dumb and act as if you don't know what political favours Bush could do for Clear, post election. One hand washes the other. No conspiracy theory, it's just the way politics is conducted once the public good becomes a vendible commodity.

And I don't know what. Either you damaged your own car, in which case you can't sue the ice, or you hit someone else, in which you'd be a right fool to blame the ice - the other fellow won't listen. I can't know which is the case, since you didn't continue the story. I don't drive, but when I fall on my ass when walking on ice, sometimes I blame myself, sometimes the ice. You see, sometimes I don't see that there's ice there, cause it's dark. No point blaming myself for not being omniscient in case, isn't there?

If you were old enough to figure you this out, you would realize how dumb the whole thing is.

Let me take you through this slowly.

If this was an accident, THEN IT ISN'T ABOUT FREE SPEECH, IS IT? Free speech is something done deliberately and with full knowledge of what is being said.

Like "Give me liberty or give me death." You get that?

If it was an accident, then it's "Ooops, I'm terribly sorry," and we all say okay Stern, do something to fix this NOW.

IF IT IS DELIBERATE, then it is about free speech, BUT THERE GOES THE CRAP, COMPLETELY PHONY ARGUMENT IT WAS AN ACCIDENT.

In other words, Stern can't have this both ways. He can't say he is a martyr for free speech, ON SOMETHING HE SUPPOSEDLY DIDN'T MEAN TO HAVE SAID!

and

But, it still boils down to who is responsible for Stern's show. If we believe Stern is not responsible for Stern's show, then WHO IS?

See above. And see the answers to the quiz (below) I believe CBS bought out Infinity, though I could be wrong.

I don't buy Stern's story. He's hiding behind this "I can't help what callers say" when he knows damn well he can. He doesn't have a cough or pause button? BS! Every DJ does!

There's more than one censor button, as I told you already. If you are willing to believe Stern is making that up, they you'd better admit he's been making that up for years before these trouble surfaced, because, facts are facts.

Think, huh, and quit using the same arguments I already shot down.

I'm not using any arguments you shot down, because your bullets missed wide of the mark. I have noticed the Stern=Racist thing has disappeared though, so I can see you dropped it because it would cost you credibility.

BTW, here are the answers to the quiz:

a) How many times, pre-2004, was Stern fined by the FCC? Howard Stern was never fined. Infinity Broadcasting, Howard's bosses, got fined.

b) What topic was Stern talking about with Robin back in the day (not in 2004) when the FCC leveled a million dollar fine? Howard was talking to Robin about waxing vs. shaving pubic hair. One million bucks for talking about pubic hair

c) What was Stern talking about, back in the day, when the 1.7 million dollar fine was levelled? Stern "talked about a vibrator and sleeping with a can of fish". (H. Stern, Miss America, Ch. 13 - the source for all of these quiz facts) 1.7 Million for that.

d) Who complained to the FCC about Stern that led to these fines? 3 people - including a woman who didn't live in area that could get the Stern show. 3 people, out of millions.

You ever hear the biblical addage, "by their fruits you shall know them?"

Think about it!

The Bible says a lot of things. I read quite a few of 'em and lemme tell you, I'm less than impressed. Ironically, you keep going on about Hitler and people not opposing freedom haters and the dangers of history repeating itself. Take a look around you, it's evident who the future tyrants are - that is the group that poses the most urgent and immediate danger. They're not an alleged plague of potty mouthed shock jocks nor women flashing their breasts during the superbowl. It's the people who were most outraged at that who are the real threat.

Where they burn books, they will burn people.

That's the fruits, according to the historical record, of the real threat to liberty in our time - religious extremism.

I can smell the fire already.

And you don't have to quote the entire damn post at the end when you reply