Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fzzy
OK ... first of all ... from my own personal "nails on the chalkboard" thing.... amendment only has one "m" in the beginning ...... OK sorry, just had to get that off my chest :)
Want to make it plain that I have not stated an opinion on this matter, just clarified how the 1st amendment has been interpreted by the courts. I personally have only spent a few minutes here or there viewing Howard Stern in any forum he presents himself in because I find the man's public personae to be crass and pre-pubescent (ok here's the problem with correcting spelling, when you then spell words that you're not sure how to spell) :sun:
On the other hand, I've never written a letter to anyone about it either. I'm in the numbers of those who basically ignore him and will be perfectly happy when he moves to his new venue. I also don't necessarily believe that the "attack" will turn to others ... it may or may not, that can only be known at a later date.
From my perspective, I think that there is a difference in presentation of certain words ... just as we've commented before about discussion of certain topics here on Pixies not being ok, but are ok on other sites ... the last one I remember of concern was a discussion about breastfeeding that a short term member wanted to do a poll on .... he mentioned it was perfectly fine on a parenthood board but was banned here .... content of the program can be important IMHO when making such decisions.
|
I hear ya...about the spelling thing fzzy! When I type on this thing and reread my words...most of them don't look correct...lol! It's annoying and I know it and I'm sorry! I know I'll never make the "amendment" mistake again though...so TY!
As to the Stern show content and presentation...I totally understand what you are saying about how one person can say something in one context and another can say the same thing in a totally different way, but did you understand me when I explained that Howard's content has ALWAYS been the same?
I'm not trying to make a case and sway opinions for Howard Stern here. He is just a perfect example of the climate of what the FCC and the governing powers are up to these days. There have been other radio jocks who have actually been ousted from their jobs recently, for being even more shocking than Howard. So...he is not the only focus of the FCC, but he is a major one!
I'll say it again...Clear Channel carried Howard's show for many years and defended his right to keep his content on many occasions. Suddenly, one day they fired the show from all of their stations with no warning and only stated that his content was the reason. He is not being paid in fulfilling his contract...even though it is an iron clad one and, yes, he is taking Clear Channel to task in litigation for it. Then the FCC aquired Michael Powell as it's head. This is a man who, on several occasions, has spoken out in favor of freedom of speech in a way that would have left Howard unscathed...till he was appointed to the FCC. Then he flip-flopped his reasonings and began fining Infinity Broadcasting for the complaints it received for the Stern show. He stated that hundreds of complaints were received, but failed to mention (till the records were checked) that these hundreds of complaints came from a handful of people...literally! The fines were high at first, but Infinity paid them none the less. Then the threat of fining individuals for each and every indescretion was tabled and discussed. This included past shows that had already aired "as is". So each show had to be re-edited for airing for the "Best Of" shows when the cast of the Stern show is on vacation. But, because the FCC hasn't clearly and concisely defined indecency, but "will know it when they hear it"...the old shows can be fined over and over and over again for words that aired the last times it was aired but wasn't sited. So, if a show is used three times (for example) and the content has been censored each time...the very next time it is aired, it can be fined again for something new that the FCC suddenly feels is indecent.
In all honesty...all Howard wants is a day in court with the FCC in order for them to define indecency. This won't help him now. But those left behind on commercial radio will need this definition in order to play by the FCC's rules and it would behoove the braodcaster's in all media venues to make certain it comes to fruition...and stop this downward spiral before it gets even more out of hand!
If it's left up to the FCC, as it is now, they have petitioned to have their meetings and results kept behind closed doors...which is against some law (that I can never remember the name of)...and quite frankly, a really bizarre request for an organization that is suppose to be in the forefront of helping people keep this country "moral"!!!!!!
Oops...running late...gotta go!
