Stop FCC - controling what you listen to

SS5_Majin_Bebi · Post by **SS5_Majin_Bebi** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 2:14 am

Couldnt be bothered signing. Yeh, censorship sucks, but theres fuck-all that can be done about it, because as long as the society of whatever country lacks confidence in itself and its works, censorship will exist.

Plus online petitions are about as much use as a condom machine in the Vatican.

Barnaby · Post by **Barnaby** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 10:35 am

Even normal petitions are only useful if they are made on soft and durable paper.

If the University Of Warwik has produced anything useful, it is demonstarting the fact that protests and petitions are apart of each other not seperate entities. With out one the other lacks weight. Afterall in the end a petition is just a list of names, maybe there all real maybe not. And a demonstration is but a faceless mob.

Hell look at all the anti war protests in the build up to the war in iraq when president bush visted the UK. And still they went to war.

In the end it always boils down to winning the majority over. Unfortunatly the majority in this case is made up of unrealistic Parents who want cencorship on TV, radios, Bill boards and so on. Yet children will still learn about violence, swearing, sex, drugs etc at school. Unfortunately they bay the bills and own shares, hence the company will listen to them long before it will listen to common sense.

DTJB · Post by **DTJB** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 4:05 pm

This petition probably won't change anything, but I signed it anyway.

Propyro · Post by **Propyro** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 2:23 pm

if i lived in the states i'd probably sign it ... but i don't so oh well.

[/|\]

valeyard · Post by **valeyard** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 7:00 pm

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.

If this had been Rush Limbaugh they would have been screaming to hang him, but Howard does it and he's a martyr?

We are defending the right to call blacks N-word on the air? Huh?

We have "hate speech" getting banned on campuses but Howard is okay with "N word" chick?

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.

I frankly have no sympathy for Stern. No sympathy at all. The guy is trash. Rush Limbaugh lost his job at ESPN for a lot less (never said N word, only made a comment about a quarterback) and no one cried censorship, because there was no censorship. There isn't any in Stern's case either.

It's nonsense. Ain't signing.

azulmagia · Post by **azulmagia** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 7:59 pm

valeyard wrote: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.

SS5_Majin_Bebi · Post by **SS5_Majin_Bebi** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:23 pm

Azulmalgia is dead right. People everywhere are irresponsible when it comes to censorship. And the one about the news being skewed, well. the media are a pack of lying vultures, its plain to see.

valeyard · Post by **valeyard** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:27 pm

As I pointed out, There are no "accidents" on talk radio. They all have delay. If it got on the air, it's because Stern wanted it to.

And please? Conspiracy theory here? Because someone supports Bush that means Bush wanted it?

Martha Stewart supported the Democrats big time, does that mean the Democrats wanted her actions?

It makes about as much sense.

And if the FCC lays some find on Stern it will be well deserved. If Stern had someone saying Jews should die on air would anyone defend him?

So now we have the right to call people by racists names as long as your "cool?"

What are we defending here people? Think about it?

There is no complete right to free speech. You can't yell fire in a theatre. The amendment was meant for political speech. That's why they could have the Hays code and bleep out bad words on tv. And that's why porn is not considered protected speech.

Stern was not making a political statement. He was allowing people to degrade women, especially black women, and I have no sympathy for the crud.

Remember the guy ALLOWED on the air, also asked if they smelled like watermelons and Stern allowed that on the air as well.

As I pointed out, this was no "accident." You are responsible for the content of your show. If that got on the air it was deliberate.

I have no sympathy for the guy and I seriously question those defending him. Is this, the legacy of civil rights? its okay to make racist comments on the air if you are "cool?"

Give me a break!

That kind of crap shouldn't be tolerated by anyone, anywhere.

Zeig Heil for pity sake!

azulmagia wrote:
valeyard wrote: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.

Org Profile · Post by **Otohiko** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 9:36 pm

Mah. Screw political correctness.

Really, going around taking everyone seriously is not get anyone anywhere...

...and x290 if it's Howard Stern.

azulmagia · Post by **azulmagia** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 9:48 pm

valeyard wrote:As I pointed out, There are no "accidents" on talk radio. They all have delay. If it got on the air, it's because Stern wanted it to.

And please? Conspiracy theory here? Because someone supports Bush that means Bush wanted it?

Howard does not have ultimate control over his show's bleep button. Tom Chiusano, via some idiot at the control desk, has control over it.

A guy who called in said the word.

Mark, a Howard Stern Fan wrote:Howard said he didn't even know what to say this morning after he was taken off of six Clear Channel radio stations yesterday. He said he just found out about it last night and wasn't sure he should talk about it or not. He said he learned some stuff off the air and he won't be talking about any congresswoman today. He said that it's obvious that free speech isn't so free. He said he was going to try and be smart and try to get them back on the air on the Clear Channel stations by Monday but it's possible he'll be fired from those stations.

Howard said that Mel Karmazin spoke to Clear Channel and told them they're in breach of contract but they apparently don't care. He said he really doesn't know what's going on and what he can talk about on the air. Robin said it was like they woke up in a different country with all of this stuff going on. Howard said he doesn't think he'll last a month on the air with all of this stuff. He said Cabbie was ready to go on a commando mission down to Washington DC.

Howard was saying that he was going to say goodbye to everyone this morning just in case something else happens....Howard said it was a caller who used the N-word that people are talking about. Howard said that he's really tired of this stuff.

....Howard said there was noting indecent about that show and he was not fined over it. Howard said that there was a call during an interview with Rick Solomon where a guy asked Rick if Paris Hilton has ever had sex with a black guy. He said he knows that Clear Channel owns stations that play rap songs with the word ''Nigga'' in them and they don't take that off the air. He said that Clear Channel had to find something to pin on him so they took that one call and blamed everything on that. Howard said he hung up on that guy when he used the N-word. He didn't use it himself.

As for Bush, who said that Bush ordered it!?

If Clear Channel is has the urge to protect their political investment (Bush) by dropping a potentially influential critic, that's not conspiracy, that's the way the world normally works.

"That's how the whole thing started," Stern said. "I mistakenly opened my mouth about my political views that didn't agree with [those of] the president of Clear Channel."

That would be John Hogan, head of the company that is the largest owner of radio properties in the United States, with thousands of stations across the country.

When Stern became critical of Bush in the aftermath of the Janet Jackson incident, it didn't sit well with Hogan or the owners of Clear Channel, the Mays family, who are also major Bush supporters. - Source

And just what does Howard say that is so richly deserving of a fining? If they fine him, they should fine Oprah too, for describing "tossing cookies" in a sexual context. Sure, they have a guy from the KKK on every now and then, but they mock him incessantly (and the stupid rube is too dumb to stop calling in).

Justice William J. Brennan wrote:If there is a bedrock principle 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.

Don't worry I can find a quote that supports your position...from Lenin...