Howard Stern Off The Air

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-02-26 09:26am

DPDarkPrimus wrote:Bob and Tom is better.

You, sir, are a God. Bob and Tom=teh W!|\|!!!!

their guest rodney carrington has me pulled over on the side of the road sometimes from laughing so hard.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-02-26 11:57am

From here

The company said Stern's suspension from its stations came after a review of his Tuesday broadcast.

"Clear Channel drew a line in the sand today with regard to protecting our listeners from indecent content, and Howard Stern's show blew right through it," Hogan said.

"It was vulgar, offensive and insulting, not just to women and African-Americans but to anyone with a sense of common decency."

Nice to know that they are trying to 'protect' their listeners. The sheer hypocrisy of this BULLSHIT. These people act as if Howard and the other shock jocks have these captive audiences that just can't turn him off and that little children are standing glued to the radio as he goes off. Why is it that the VAST majority of listeners that want to listen to Howard are ignored and instead we focus on the handful of offended ass crabs that can't muster the will to turn the fucking dial!!!

In all of these debates it is NEVER mentioned how overwhlemingly popular these shows are and instead we're told how they are assaulting decency. FUCK YOU.

Now that you silenced Howard the masses can go watch "My fat obnoxious fiance" you bastards.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-26 12:06pm

All of this "decency" bullshit is based on religious objections, which are in turn based upon fear. Religious nuts are afraid that given a level playing field, their children will choose ideologies other than their own.

And why shouldn't they be? Their own ideology is annoying as hell; you can't do this, you can't do that, you're still an irredeemable sinner even if you follow all of their fucking rules and deny your earthly indulgences for your entire life, etc. So religious parents live in fear that their kids might hear about sex, because they might start doing it (of course, this presumes that if they don't see sex on TV, millions of years of instinct will magically dissipate and they won't feel any urge to have sex

).

CDiehl · Post by **CDiehl** » 2004-02-26 01:21pm

If you want to worry about censorship, worry about the FCC. They violate the First Amendment by being able to give or take away a license to broadcast anything at all, which is a form of expression, and by having the ability to enforce a concept of "offensiveness" by denying such licenses. They also violate the Fifth Amendment by levying fines without due process. If you have a need to flog Clear Channel for anything, flog them for suddenly deciding that Stern's show is bad now, instead of when they bought whatever stations they now own that had run his show. They did this now because the FCC is on a morality kick and Clear Channel understandably doesn't want to get into trouble. Those who live in areas where said stations did this don't have to worry, because other stations will pick up Stern, because it's popular and they can make money from playing it.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-26 01:54pm

If you want to worry about censorship, worry about the FCC. They violate the First Amendment by being able to give or take away a license to broadcast anything at all,

Free speech is not an all encompassing right nor does that mean speech is not subject to reasonable regulation. After all, slander and libel aren't covered and neither for that matter is screaming fire in a crowded theater.

If there was no one controlling the airwaves it would simply be like the old days, whoever had the best transmitter could drown out every one else. That's not free speech either and at least this way the airwaves are regulated and by an agency that does so according to the public wishes.

I agree that the standard of "offensive" is a moronic way to handle things. We need to have a more reasonable standard of judgement than that. And of course the soccer moms need a kick in the damn pants over the nanny-government shit.

That doesn't mean that the FCC is unconsitutional or even bad idea.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-26 02:53pm

Stormbringer wrote:I agree that the standard of "offensive" is a moronic way to handle things. We need to have a more reasonable standard of judgement than that. And of course the soccer moms need a kick in the damn pants over the nanny-government shit.

Actually, this uproar over "decency" largely comes from the religious right and its strong support base in the Republican Party. I suppose it's easier to blame "soccer moms" than the people who are actually in charge and making this happen

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-26 02:59pm

About Stern...it seems he asked an apparently well-educated Nigerian woman, presumbably an immigrant, who called into to complain about something if she had ever eaten a monkey. Yeah. I don't know if he should have been fired, but what got him in trouble appears to have been in spectacularly bad taste.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-26 02:59pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:I agree that the standard of "offensive" is a moronic way to handle things. We need to have a more reasonable standard of judgement than that. And of course the soccer moms need a kick in the damn pants over the nanny-government shit.
Actually, this uproar over "decency" largely comes from the religious right and its strong support base in the Republican Party. I suppose it's easier to blame "soccer moms" than the people who are actually in charge and making this happen

That really is a gross oversimplification. This isn't a case of Fundies vs everyone else.

The public uproar hasn't been confined to just to the fundamentalists however much easier it to blame them for everything. So called parents groups have been as up in arms lately as any fundy. No elected official is going to ignore the simple fact that a lot of people (and by no means are they all fundies) were offended by the Super Bowl stunt.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-26 03:04pm

Stormbringer wrote:That really is a gross oversimplification. This isn't a case of Fundies vs everyone else.

And you say this based on ...?

The public uproar hasn't been confined to just to the fundamentalists however much easier it to blame them for everything. So called parents groups have been as up in arms lately as any fundy.

More bullshit. Look up these "parents' groups" and "family values organizations" and you will find that nearly all of them are church-based.

No elected official is going to ignore the simple fact that a lot of people (and by no means are they all fundies) were offended by the Super Bowl stunt.

And your evidence that non-religious people were offended by the Super Bowl stunt is ...?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-26 03:11pm

And you say this based on ...?

Have you seen the poll numbers over this? It's simply impossible that seventy-something percent of people were fundamentalists then things would be quite different.

More bullshit. Look up these "parents' groups" and "family values organizations" and you will find that nearly all of them are church-based.

Some are, some aren't. And being religious still doesn't equate with fundamentalists.

And your evidence that non-religious people were offended by the Super Bowl stunt is ...?

Again, religious doesn't mean fundamentalist.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-02-26 03:28pm

Stern was ranting on Bush like crazy, then he was dropped...

HMMMMM =/

Either they dropped him because of his anti-Bush tirades, or they got uncomfortable with his criticisms of Heather Wilson. Clear Channel has a rep for this bullshit, btw.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-26 03:42pm

Stormbringer wrote:
And you say this based on ...?
Have you seen the poll numbers over this? It's simply impossible that seventy-something percent of people were fundamentalists then things would be quite different.

Did I say they were all fundies? I said they were "religious", dumb-ass. Learn to read.

Some are, some aren't. And being religious still doesn't equate with fundamentalists.

More straw. Learn to read.

And your evidence that non-religious people were offended by the Super Bowl stunt is ...?
Again, religious doesn't mean fundamentalist.

See above. Learn to read.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-02-26 04:28pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Lord Poe wrote:Is the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission religious based, or just an uptight Canadian version of the FCC? They kicked Stern and Tom Leykis out of Canada altogether

http://www.blowmeuptom.com/MOJO.html
The CRTC is the Canadian version of the FCC, and faces some of the same political pressure. But nobody's being "kicked out". Stern was dropped in Montreal after offending the French-canadians (they're the most thin-skinned people in the fucking world), and Q107 in Toronto dropped him because they wanted to go to a music-based morning show, not three hours of talk. And Leykis is being dropped by the Vancouver station because they're tired of having to edit his show to meet broadcast standards.

Remember that hate speech is illegal in Canada, and a lot of Stern's comments skirt around the edge of what might be classified as hate speech (note: the hate speech codes do not differentiate between serious and humourous comments). It's a policy with downsides and upsides. It makes Stern's brand of humour problematic on many occasions, but then again, we have no Fred Phelps in our country.

The CRTC have been asked by some medias to close the microphones of two French-Canadian radio commentators Andre Arthur and Jeff Fillion,just because they criticised Quebec city`s mayor and others who are trying to cover the prostitution ring scandal that includes ministers of the PQ and some celebrities that can`t be named,so censoship is alive and well in the kingdom of Quebec.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2004-02-26 04:59pm

Stravo wrote:From here

The company said Stern's suspension from its stations came after a review of his Tuesday broadcast.

"Clear Channel drew a line in the sand today with regard to protecting our listeners from indecent content, and Howard Stern's show blew right through it," Hogan said.

"It was vulgar, offensive and insulting, not just to women and African-Americans but to anyone with a sense of common decency."

Nice to know that they are trying to 'protect' their listeners. The sheer hypocrisy of this BULLSHIT.

It is. The show in question stemmed from Howard asking the guy hawking the Paris Hilton tape if he ever did her anal. Then a listener called in and asked the guy if he ever did a "nigger". Stern cut him off.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2004-02-26 05:04pm

Darth Wong wrote:Actually, this uproar over "decency" largely comes from the religious right and its strong support base in the Republican Party. I suppose it's easier to blame "soccer moms" than the people who are actually in charge and making this happen

It is the religious right, but it doesn't stop with the Republicans. The Democrats and many liberals are just as bad. They will not dare contend with any yahoo that uses the excuse of having their religious beliefs "offended", and many use that crap to "clean up" indecency as they see it.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2004-02-26 05:06pm

Joe wrote:About Stern...it seems he asked an apparently well-educated Nigerian woman, presumbably an immigrant, who called into to complain about something if she had ever eaten a monkey. Yeah. I don't know if he should have been fired, but what got him in trouble appears to have been in spectacularly bad taste.

What got him in trouble is uptight fuckheads that can't take a joke, unless its told on Sesame Street.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2004-02-26 05:06pm

The religious right is doing this, but its partly the Soccer moms' fault for just sitting their and sucking up their opinions, and the media's fault for continuously publicizing the damn thing.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2004-02-26 05:08pm

Hamel wrote:Stern was ranting on Bush like crazy, then he was dropped...

HMMMMM =/

Either they dropped him because of his anti-Bush tirades, or they got uncomfortable with his criticisms of Heather Wilson. Clear Channel has a rep for this bullshit, btw.

In fact, Stern said today he got a call "suggesting" he stop talking shit about Wilson.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2004-02-26 05:13pm

You know what's funny? Stern has often said newscasters or celebrities would never dare say anything negative about Michael Jackson or O.J. Simpson in public. Yet when it comes to Stern, they freely piss and moan about him.

I don't recall Stern ever killing, molesting, beating, raping or kidnapping anyone. And as he pointed out about broadcast standards in the community: he lives in a community where priests are molesting young boys.

CRUCIBLE · Post by **CRUCIBLE** » 2004-02-26 06:51pm

Gee, and i really thougt the censorship on Computer Games here in Germay was just plain stupid.

But the things going on at your place, that gives the word censorship a whole new aspect.

At first the outcry, because of some...well, one...not even very good tit. And now this.

This is a tendency that is just not normal. Next time you say "shit" on the open street you may get shot for it. By some Religious Zealot....

who will be glorified as hero for purging you from your sins.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2004-02-26 07:54pm

Has anyone though of starting a "Save Howard Stern!" petition?

My favorite was the one where the one guy's sister came on and promised to come out of the dressing room naked if her brother lost. He did, but she refused, and instead ran out wrapped in enough toilet paper that we couldn't see her tits or ass(this was on the tv viewing of the show). Howard got way pissed off, telling her what a bitch she was for breaking a promise.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-02-26 08:02pm

Chardok wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote:Bob and Tom is better.
You, sir, are a God. Bob and Tom=teh W!|\|!!!!

their guest rodney carrington has me pulled over on the side of the road sometimes from laughing so hard.

They actually had Timothy Zahn on a few weeks ago, but I missed that show, unfortunately.

Vertigo1 · Post by **Vertigo1** » 2004-02-27 04:02am

Oh for crying out loud....

The FCC can kiss my fucking ass. If people don't like what Howard says, they can just change the fucking dial. Its not that damn hard.

Fucking fundie assholes.

CDiehl · Post by **CDiehl** » 2004-02-27 02:11pm

Storm, we are not talking about libel or slander, neither of which have anything to do with free speech, so why bring it up? Stern has not been fined by the FCC in the past for libel or slander, but because he said what the FCC defines as "dirty" or "improper." Even if the First Amendment is not an absolute right, it makes no provision for people not to be offended. As for having standards, why not have everyone judge for themselves, like the intelligent creatures they are, and leave it at that, with nobody deciding for anyone else? Is that such a crazy idea? About the constitutionality of the FCC, tell me where the Constitution empowers the government to regulate who can or can't set up a transmitter and what they can and can't transmit. Isn't broadcasting anything just as much a form of free expression as printing a book or newspaper, making a phone call, or posting on the Internet? None of these activities need a government agency to regulate them, and if anyone tried to make one, nobody would tolerate it. You are right that there are many people of all political persuasions who would love to force their own standards of decency on others. With the power the FCC wields, who could resist the temptation?

Majin Gojira · Post by **Majin Gojira** » 2004-02-27 02:12pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Joe wrote:Thank you very much, Janet Jackson. You stupid fucking whore.
This isn't really her fault. This is the fault of screeching, overreacting morons and the media being the spineless whore.

I Blame Justin Timberlake. Why? Because he sucks.