Stop FCC - controling what you listen to

[valeyard]

Political correctness?

So, I'm right? It's okay to be a racist, as long as the majority thinks your "cool."

You know most Germans in 1936 thought Hitler was cool. Did that make it okay? They thought he was a god then. Did that make it okay?

Think about this, because I don't think anyone is. This is not political correctness. It was not okay to be racist LONG before there was political correctness. It used to just be called being a bigot. So, bigots are in now, and that makes it okay?

And I don't take Stern seriously, the people signing this petition apparently are. What are they standing for? The right to be a bigot on the air? Is this what we have come to?

I don't take Stern seriously, I take the idea that the behavior he allowed on the air which was clearly bigoted should suddenly be a "cause," when only a few years ago, it would have just been seen as the actions of someone in some unorganized militia screaming white supremacy!

I am frankly flabbergasted that ANYONE would try to excuse this. It is inexcusable. Sorry, but that's my view and I am about as unpolitically correct as you can get.

Mah. Screw political correctness.

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

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

[Otohiko]

Gee, I think Stern is so cool! I think I'll elect him president tomorrow!

Again, falling for a trap of taking-things-too-seriously.

Chill out.

I find Stern amusing. Even when he turned a classic song by my favorite band into the theme for 'The Lord Of The Anal Rings', I laughed.

I laughed at a few concentration camp jokes. I laugh at jokes about Nazis that make Hitler and co. funny.
My grandfather's brother died in a concentration camp; and his friend was killed by a german mine; while on the other side of the family, my aging great-great-grandfather starved to death in a beseiged city.

But does that take away my ability to laugh at a politically-incorrect smirk? Bah! I'll laugh until I drop if I want to. There is nothing inherently disrespectful or harmful in this.

Have I ever done anything prejudiced based on race? Have I ever denied a person rights, or shunned them because I laughed at a racist joke? No. And in fact, from what I see, I tend to surround myself with people of the broadest range of backgrounds and preferences, and treat them all the same. Who are you to say a dirty joke changes me?

You look around and you see all these yearnest religious pro-censorship, pro-war folks that in places also happen to hold beefs for racial or religious minorities; you have these wonderfully 'politically correct' politicians who just happen to decide to kill a thousand or ten of people because it's nice to be democratic - and then you have Stern...

What is this? Where has the spirit gone?

Deal with real issues, folks. There's people dying in the world, and we're here drooping over the fact that a comment about their race, or someone else's race, or faith, or name, or color, or whatever - touched off a reaction based on inherent psychological insecurity.

Really. Taking people too seriously, or not being able to laugh at others, and, more importantly, yourself, is not something to be proud of.

[valeyard]

Yeah, and the Jews in Germany that started to hear inciting against Jews said they were harmless cranks too.

I'm sorry but "chill out" doesn't cut it. It's either WRONG or it isn't. Chill out is a way to get around the hard issues and not have to have the backbone to make a judgment.

It is WRONG to call someone "N word" chick, and ask if they smell like watermelons?

I'm sorry but to me the ANSWER IS YES!

If the answer is YES, then "chill out" doesn't wipe YES away.

If the answer is NO, then tell me WHY now talking about ANYONE like that is okay? Because, "it's funny" seems a pretty sad argument. There are a lot of "racist jokes" out there that might be "funny." That STILL doesn't make it okay.

So, please don't give me the chill out crap, don't tell me to relax and we don't have to make the hard judgments anymore. Have some courage. Answer the question, and then have the courage to LIVE with your answer.

Because I'm sorry "chill out" is simply a way to escape the intellectual aspects. Maybe that suffices for you, but not for me. Not now, not ever.

Gee, I think Stern is so cool! I think I'll elect him president tomorrow!

Again, falling for a trap of taking-things-too-seriously.

Chill out.

I find Stern amusing. Even when he turned a classic song by my favorite band into the theme for 'The Lord Of The Anal Rings', I laughed.

I laughed at a few concentration camp jokes. I laugh at jokes about Nazis that make Hitler and co. funny.
My grandfather's brother died in a concentration camp; and his friend was killed by a german mine; while on the other side of the family, my aging great-great-grandfather starved to death in a beseiged city.

But does that take away my ability to laugh at a politically-incorrect smirk? Bah! I'll laugh until I drop if I want to. There is nothing inherently disrespectful or harmful in this.

Have I ever done anything prejudiced based on race? Have I ever denied a person rights, or shunned them because I laughed at a racist joke? No. And in fact, from what I see, I tend to surround myself with people of the broadest range of backgrounds and preferences, and treat them all the same. Who are you to say a dirty joke changes me?

You look around and you see all these yearnest religious pro-censorship, pro-war folks that in places also happen to hold beefs for racial or religious minorities; you have these wonderfully 'politically correct' politicians who just happen to decide to kill a thousand or ten of people because it's nice to be democratic - and then you have Stern...

What is this? Where has the spirit gone?

Deal with real issues, folks. There's people dying in the world, and we're here drooping over the fact that a comment about their race, or someone else's race, or faith, or name, or color, or whatever - touched off a reaction based on inherent psychological insecurity.

Really. Taking people too seriously, or not being able to laugh at others, and, more importantly, yourself, is not something to be proud of.

[Beowulf]

It is WRONG to call someone "N word" chick, and ask if they smell like watermelons?

I'm sorry but to me the ANSWER IS YES!

For the love of god just say NIGGER. Your adding an unjustified level of seriousness to the issue by not even properly addressing the word your are so upset about.

Someone said nigger on the air. Thats all that happend here. And I think your comparison Nazi Germany and the Holocaust is at best dissalusioned and at worst an utter fucking insult. No one is inciting genocide here. People are just being assholes. Please see the difference.

[azulmagia]

Political correctness?

So, I'm right? It's okay to be a racist, as long as the majority thinks your "cool."

You know most Germans in 1936 thought Hitler was cool. Did that make it okay? They thought he was a god then. Did that make it okay?

Think about this, because I don't think anyone is. This is not political correctness. It was not okay to be racist LONG before there was political correctness. It used to just be called being a bigot. So, bigots are in now, and that makes it okay?

And I don't take Stern seriously, the people signing this petition apparently are. What are they standing for? The right to be a bigot on the air? Is this what we have come to?

A lot of people lay this blanket charge of bigotry against Stern....I don't buy it.

Y'know who also thought Hitler was cool way back then? Prescott Bush...Dubya's grand daddy...who had a little trouble with a piece of legislation called the "Trading With the Enemy Act".

Orwell said, "Freedom of speech means the right to tell people what they don't want to hear", and that was the real issue in this case, not the N-word! The real issue is this stupid moral crusade against "indecency", and let me tell you something, every moral crusade in history has been a diversionary tactic, and this one is not likely to be the first exception to this rule.

If you (a) hate bigots and (b) don't take Stern seriously, why are you so riled up about him, to the extent that you wouldn't mind him being taken off the air altogether. It takes more than a few mentions of the N-word and a few ethnic jokes to make one a bigot. In fact if that was all it took, the bigot quotiant would rise considerably. Lenny Bruce was a bigot by those criteria. Hell, any white guy who has used the phrase, "N-word please" or "fo' shizzle my nizzle" is a bigot. There are far worse and far more serious guys you could go after.

What makes this even stranger is that there is certain movie that is a box office hit that could well be anti-semitic, and while there was a considerable buzz about that possibility before it was hit, ever since it started raking in the millions there has been a curious silence of the grave about the issue. I haven't seen it, so I can't really comment on it, except there has been a rash of anti-semitic and anti-muslim vandalism and graffitti in my town, and I can't help wondering if there's a connection.

Now I am not advocating censorship for that movie. Not at all. It would probably be as mistaken a move as to do a pussified interview with the director of the film (backing off on his father's wacked out holocaust denial theories - "Leave it alone, Diane. You got to leave it alone!"). If I forgo others the right of freedom of speech, on what grounds can I claim enjoyment of it for myself? is the philosophical question.

When the television rights of this movie are obtained, it will then fall under FCC purview (which is not the case now) and it would indeed be interesting to see the FCC's reaction.

"It was not okay to be racist LONG before there was political correctness. It used to just be called being a bigot." I think the real reason people are soft on attacking real racism in America is (a) because a lot of people, especially powerful people - think that the wealth should stay with the wealthy, who happen to be white and (b) because there is more to a rogues gallery of American racists/white supremacists than just Archie Bunker and David Duke - including such individuals as Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson etc and uh, The South. Better not to go hard on racists than to bruise the national ego.

"Bigot," incidentally comes from medieval German and literally means "by God", i.e. a holier-than-thou....

[valeyard]

For the love of GOD indeed.

So, it's now in to be a bigot. And it's okay as long as it's "cool."

And the comparison with Nazi Germany is quite appropos, because it was considered cool then too.

And No one was talking about killing at first either! It just starts that way, as a "movement" that seems cool, and then it moves along little by little. That's always the way it starts. It's always starts with people refusing to take a stand, and then degenerates from there.

I'm just suggesting that "cool" isn't enough of a justification. In fact, it's a pretty pathetic one.

And No, I won't use that word. Because, I think it's wrong.

It is WRONG to call someone "N word" chick, and ask if they smell like watermelons?

I'm sorry but to me the ANSWER IS YES!

For the love of god just say NIGGER. Your adding an unjustified level of seriousness to the issue by not even properly addressing the word your are so upset about.

Someone said nigger on the air. Thats all that happend here. And I think your comparison Nazi Germany and the Holocaust is at best dissalusioned and at worst an utter fucking insult. No one is inciting genocide here. People are just being assholes. Please see the difference.

[valeyard]

That Prescott Bush stuff is totally the stuff of wacko blog sites.

You aren't going to find any serious historical place hawking that, because it's the stuff of wacko blog sites.

And what does Prescott Bush have to do with it?

Let's just say you are and the nut blog sites are right and Prescott Bush was a Nazi. That would put him in company with Charles Linberg and a host of others that though Adolf Hitler was a great guy in the 30s. You would be surprised how many Americans did.

But let's just say you are right. Al Gore, Sr. Filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Does that make Al Gore jr. responsible as well?

So let's get back to the subject. If it is wrong to be racist then it's wrong all the time, not just when someone you DON'T LIKE does it.

It becomes wrong even if the cool guy does it.

I just find it hard to believe the supposedly "enlightened" are justifying bigotry.

I just find it laughable. If this was Rush Limbaugh, or some Christian radio show, there would be screams for these people's blood. They would scream to have them yanked now. But if it's Stern it's okay?

I ask the question again. Is it WRONG to say "have you F#ed a NWord Chick and does she smell like watermelons."

It it's wrong, it's wrong for everybody. If it is okay it's okay for everybody. That means KKK, and anyone else you can name.

What are we standing for here? Because I think you need to really think about that.

Political correctness?

So, I'm right? It's okay to be a racist, as long as the majority thinks your "cool."

You know most Germans in 1936 thought Hitler was cool. Did that make it okay? They thought he was a god then. Did that make it okay?

Think about this, because I don't think anyone is. This is not political correctness. It was not okay to be racist LONG before there was political correctness. It used to just be called being a bigot. So, bigots are in now, and that makes it okay?

And I don't take Stern seriously, the people signing this petition apparently are. What are they standing for? The right to be a bigot on the air? Is this what we have come to?

A lot of people lay this blanket charge of bigotry against Stern....I don't buy it.

Y'know who also thought Hitler was cool way back then? Prescott Bush...Dubya's grand daddy...who had a little trouble with a piece of legislation called the "Trading With the Enemy Act".

Orwell said, "Freedom of speech means the right to tell people what they don't want to hear", and that was the real issue in this case, not the N-word! The real issue is this stupid moral crusade against "indecency", and let me tell you something, every moral crusade in history has been a diversionary tactic, and this one is not likely to be the first exception to this rule.

If you (a) hate bigots and (b) don't take Stern seriously, why are you so riled up about him, to the extent that you wouldn't mind him being taken off the air altogether. It takes more than a few mentions of the N-word and a few ethnic jokes to make one a bigot. In fact if that was all it took, the bigot quotiant would rise considerably. Lenny Bruce was a bigot by those criteria. Hell, any white guy who has used the phrase, "N-word please" or "fo' shizzle my nizzle" is a bigot. There are far worse and far more serious guys you could go after.

What makes this even stranger is that there is certain movie that is a box office hit that could well be anti-semitic, and while there was a considerable buzz about that possibility before it was hit, ever since it started raking in the millions there has been a curious silence of the grave about the issue. I haven't seen it, so I can't really comment on it, except there has been a rash of anti-semitic and anti-muslim vandalism and graffitti in my town, and I can't help wondering if there's a connection.

Now I am not advocating censorship for that movie. Not at all. It would probably be as mistaken a move as to do a pussified interview with the director of the film (backing off on his father's wacked out holocaust denial theories - "Leave it alone, Diane. You got to leave it alone!"). If I forgo others the right of freedom of speech, on what grounds can I claim enjoyment of it for myself? is the philosophical question.

When the television rights of this movie are obtained, it will then fall under FCC purview (which is not the case now) and it would indeed be interesting to see the FCC's reaction.

"It was not okay to be racist LONG before there was political correctness. It used to just be called being a bigot." I think the real reason people are soft on attacking real racism in America is (a) because a lot of people, especially powerful people - think that the wealth should stay with the wealthy, who happen to be white and (b) because there is more to a rogues gallery of American racists/white supremacists than just Archie Bunker and David Duke - including such individuals as Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson etc and uh, The South. Better not to go hard on racists than to bruise the national ego.

"Bigot," incidentally comes from medieval German and literally means "by God", i.e. a holier-than-thou....

[azulmagia]

Yes, it would appear that is "in" among certain people to be a particular kind of bigot, unfortunately.

But Stern has nothing to do with that.

You're wrong about nobody talked about killing people in the beginning. They just didn't shout it to the sky. Most of the ideas of the Third Reich - up to and including the incineration of the "inferior" races - can be traced back to turn of the century German "Ariosophy" (the Thule Gesellschaft which played a strong part in the foundation of the Nazi Party, was an ariosophist society).

The idea that there are "inferior" races was a very mainstream position back then...and the irony is that the most influential anti-semitic bigots today are not being attacked because they happen to be on the same side as right wing zionism (which they support because of wacked out end-time "prophecies") In fact, if you go after them, you could well find yourself being accused of anti-semitism.

[azulmagia]

That Prescott Bush stuff is totally the stuff of wacko blog sites.

You aren't going to find any serious historical place hawking that, because it's the stuff of wacko blog sites.

And what does Prescott Bush have to do with it?

Let's just say you are and the nut blog sites are right and Prescott Bush was a Nazi. That would put him in company with Charles Linberg and a host of others that though Adolf Hitler was a great guy in the 30s. You would be surprised how many Americans did.

But let's just say you are right. Al Gore, Sr. Filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Does that make Al Gore jr. responsible as well?

So let's get back to the subject.

I just find it hard to believe the supposedly "enlightened" are justifying bigotry.

I just find it laughable. If this was Rush Limbaugh, or some Christian radio show, there would be screams for these people's blood. They would scream to have them yanked now. But if it's Stern it's okay?

I ask the question again. Is it WRONG to say "have you F#ed a NWord Chick and does she smell like watermelons."

It it's wrong, it's wrong for everybody. If it is okay it's okay for everybody. That means KKK, and anyone else you can name.

What are we standing for here? Because I think you need to really think about that.

Man, you just don't get it.

1. If it were Rush, I wouldn't scream for his blood. I would say he's a bigot asshole though, and I would point that out. (Rush probably is a bigotted asshole though)

2. Hell, I knew full well how many people in the US liked Hitler back then. I suppose everything written on Blogs about Bush and his family is a lie, including him going AWOL and stealing the election. If the press wasn't so pussified/bought and paid for I wouldn't have to resort to such sources would I now? By "serious historical place" you mean mainstream, and the two are not necessarily the same thing.

3. "If it is wrong to be racist then it's wrong all the time, not just when someone you DON'T LIKE does it. It becomes wrong even if the cool guy does it." That's what I've saying all along, as well as pointing out it's harder to fight if the cool guy (or cool movie) does it.

4. No way I would defend Stern if he was a racist. But I don't buy that he's a racist. You have no sense of context whatsoever. Hell he even has a black woman in the friggin studio with him. You're going to have to do better than that if you really want to paint Stern as a racist.

5. You allege that Stern has some sort of mystical control over his callers, such that he can be held responsible for the remarks of his callers. What sophistry. He doesn't even have control over the censor button, his boss does.

6. In the abstract "have you F#ed a NWord Chick and does she smell like watermelons" is a fairly racist comment. I don't see how most people will disagree with that. It also tells us very little. For example, would it be wrong to put it in the mouth of a racist character in an anti-racist play? It is also possible to be against it on racist grounds - i.e. code words such as "welfare" or "crime problem" get better results than such rhetoric. Focusing attention on such banalities probably only diverts attention from the really dangerous, because more mainstream, racist ideology.

7. "It it's wrong, it's wrong for everybody. If it is okay it's okay for everybody." A noble but not very popular sentiment, since people are as likely today as in 1930 to maintain an ethical asymmetry vis-a-vis their own favoured groups. It's also worth searching yourself to see if you really agree with it, which I probably doubt. I mean, do you really believe, that if the US had a right to "pre-emptively" wage a war of aggression against Iraq in the name of preserving US national security, then it follows that, say, North Korea, has a symmetrical right to do the same to the US in the name of its security. But if you disagree, then obviously you would have to rewrite it as "If it's wrong, it's wrong for everybody except for....", which was also the approximate position of the Nazis, complete with ideological justification of why they happened to be the exception to the rule.

[kthulhu]

The right to free speech has to include both popular and unpopular speech. Otherwise, it's "free speech for some, little American flags for others. Turned upside down."

You said earlier:

There is no complete right to free speech. You can't yell fire in a theatre.

That's because common good (public safety) outweighs the personal right (inciting a panicked stampede that can cause death). Sure, you CAN say it, but if there's no fire and someone dies, you're likely to go to jail for involuntary manslaughter. That's a straw man; any act that results in possible, involuntary harm to another person will nullify your rights.

The amendment was meant for political speech.

So, if someone said "As President, I will push for legislation to send the spics back to Mexico and the niggers back to Africa" during a campaign, you'd consider that to be protected speech?

And that's why porn is not considered protected speech.

And yet there's so much of it. It sure is abundant and readily available for

It's more that porn can't exactly be pinned down - is a photo of a naked woman pornography, or an artistic representation of the female form?

The reason we don't see a whole lot of pornography in public is both sensible public decency laws (most of the time) that send potentially offensive material into the private arena, in addition to the overall sense of what will fly and what won't with the general public, on the side of people posting material in public.

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.

But if it was for political reasons, would you be openly upset? After all, he is exercising his Constitutional rights, in your warped view.

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

And Clear Channel reacted by dropping Stern's show. They decided the controversy of the racist statement wasn't in line with their image or helpful to their bottom line (and provided a useful opportunity to dump someone they viewed an anti-Bush thorn in their side, possibly).

Stern and his producer got as much reaction as is needed from Clear Channel. Do you want him to go to prison because the word "nigger" was heard for three seconds?

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.

Yes, and Clear Channel responded. It's not up to the government to decide that Stern and his show need more punishment.

I have no sympathy for the guy and I seriously question those defending him.

It's called the principle of equality for all. Every opinion, no matter how vile or wrong, should be allowed to be voiced. As azulmagia said, if I deny others the right to say what they wish, what right do I have to say what I wish myself?

Is this, the legacy of civil rights?

Civil rights are only something for black people? I thought they were for everyone. You're referring to the movement in the 1960s, I hope, which was for equal treatment in everything, not just race relations. "Sure, white sir, continue to segregate me, not allow me to have a voice in the political process, and treat me as a second class citizen. Just don't call me nigger, and it'll all be swell!"

I don't think so.

its okay to make racist comments on the air if you are "cool?"

No, it's not OK. Clear Channel didn't think so, and hence they canned Mr. Stern from their network. The bigger implications and problems don't change the fact that, at base, Howard Stern's show DID get in trouble for what happened, and was duly punished at the level and by the only parties who have any right to do so.

If you're advocating for a federal regulation on what types of speech one can and can't use, as you seem to be, then don't be surprised when it turns around on you.

Free speech covers such nice things as classical music, Van Gogh paintings, and Robert Frost. At the same time, it has to also cover unsavory items such as anti-abortion protestors' gruesome signs, death metal, and "Mein Kampf". It has to cover it in every facet, and not just in the political, as you erroneously believe it does (besides, that just makes for a loophole to be exploited). We can't have only one side - otherwise, who determines what's protected and what isn't?

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

I just find it laughable. If this was Rush Limbaugh, or some Christian radio show, there would be screams for these people's blood. They would scream to have them yanked now. But if it's Stern it's okay?

Oh grand, the whole persecuted "There's a liberal bias in America!" spiel of the phony neo-conservative types. Considering AM talk radio is dominated by right wingers, Fox News is one of the biggest and most popular networks around, and there's a chronic rallying around the president and the government in society as a whole, I'd say the right wing has a plenty big voice.

Here's a question: If Rush or a Christian radio show said "nigger" on the air in a derogatory context, would you be quick to lash out at them?

I'll gladly state that it was inappropriate and stupid of Mr. Stern's show to air the nigger comment. They should have known that it was a cheap ploy that wouldn't go over well, and they have no one but themselves to blame for Clear Channel dropping them.