Good riddance to Stern

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, February 27, 2004 | Joseph Farah

[JohnHuang2]

Good riddance to Stern

---

Posted: February 27, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Howard Stern is a filthy, profane, vulgar, obscene disgusting pig.

He shouldn't be on the radio. He should be in the zoo.

Three cheers for Clear Channel Communication's decision to pull his show off the air temporarily. It's late, after all these years of smut-peddling on the radio, but the decision should be applauded.

It's a smart move. It's the right thing to do. It's a good business decision. Anyone who believes in right and wrong ought to know that a slimebucket like Stern has no place on the public airwaves.

In good conscience, I can't even describe adequately what Stern said on his program that got him suspended. All I will say is it had to to with the "n" word, anal sex, the size of certain parts of the male anatomy, etc. You get the idea – the usual Howard Stern, over-the-top, shock-jock antics.

It might make short-term sense for a company to pollute the air and water rather than dispose of waste responsibly. But, in the long term, it makes more sense not to kill your customers.

In the same way, our popular culture is becoming a moral cesspool, polluted by the likes of Stern, Janet Jackson, Viacom, CBS and a thousand other irresponsible clowns and corporations that will do whatever they can get away with for shock value, ratings and short-term advantage. Long term, it makes sense to police oneself in matters of media decency, too. Moral toxicity can be as lethal to a society as air and water pollution – maybe more so.

Let me make something very clear: Howard Stern was pulled from Clear Channel stations and warned to clean up his act by one broadcasting company. He wasn't kicked off radio by the Federal Communications Commission.

This is a case where a company is exercising good judgment and corporate responsibility to make the right call. This is a story of a broadcaster policing itself. What's wrong with that?

This is not a censorship issue. It's responsible decision by a broadcaster about the programming it offers. Yes, the Federal Communications Commission is beginning to take seriously its mission of policing the airwaves. Yes, I take a backseat to no one when it comes to fear of government.

But the Stern controversy is not about government's heavy hand.

If it were up to me, we could run the entire federal government on 10 percent of what we spend today – and our country would be healthier, safer, freer.

The truth is we will be a lot closer to that goal when more individuals and companies in this country start making good, responsible, self-governing choices – as Clear Channel belatedly did with Howard Stern.

There are many reasons to worry about the government's role in broadcasting. There are attempts to bring back the fairness doctrine. I agree some politicians would like to use that kind of legislation shut down the free flow of information on talk radio.

But matters of decency and obscenity are not the same as political speech. We should never make that mistake. Those of us with children understand how difficult it is to protect them, to shelter them, to preserve their innocence in today's media environment.

Clear Channel made the right decision.

---

[JohnHuang2]

Friday, February 27, 2004

Quote of the Day by kevao

[Calpernia]

Evening John!

[Revel]

"Howard Stern is a filthy, profane, vulgar, obscene disgusting pig.

He shouldn't be on the radio. He should be in the zoo. "

Sounds good to me.

[JohnHuang2]

Backatya, my friend :-)

[Dasaji]

This was certainly a business decision on Clear Channels part. I couldnt believe how many idiots came into my dealership today spouting First Amendment Violations over this.

After about the 3rd one, my pat answer became this: I dont care how good a salesman you are, if what you do is going to irk customers and jeopardize my state licensing, youre outta here...exactly the message Stern is getting.

[Indy Pendance]

The pendulum is swinging to the right, let's hope it gets stuck there.

[quantim]

It appears that in a free-market society the market has spoken.

Got to love it.

[DoughtyOne]

Amen! Thanks for posting another great article John.

[JohnHuang2]

Welcome, bud

[GeronL]

For those who have never heard the Stern Show before...

"Take off your shirt lady"..."Nice boobs, let them me feel them"... "Now french kiss her while I rub your boobs and [privates]"... "We have to get rid of Bush"... "Tomorrow we have 3 lesbians!"

There that about sums it up.

[sully777]

I haven't listened to Howard Stern for 19 years BY CHOICE. Others have listened to Stern for 19 years BY CHOICE. This is America not the Soviet Union or Saudi Arabia, right? No one is holding a gun to our heads.

One day, in the not too distant future, food will be taxed on health content, familial corporal punishment will be outlawed, and saying/thinking certain politically incorrect thoughts will be illegal, punishable by fine and/or jail term.

Gloating over the loss of freedoms and usurption of constitutional rights for your neighbor is a myopic ignorance of your own loss.

[Qwinn]

Um, so listening to Howard Stern is now a Constitutional Right?

Qwinn

[DoughtyOne]

Heh heh heh, why'd you clean it up before recounting what takes place on his show? LOL

For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would watch his show more than a few times. It's the same degenerate routine every day, day after day.

How many times can you listen to some guy acting like a 14 year old begging one woman or another to take their clothes off. Then he actually has the gaul to rate these women, as if he's anything to look at.

I wouldn't want anyone that I cared about to appear on his show.

[sully777]

Never said that! I suggest you reread my post.

[GeronL]

I only heard about a half an hour of it once...

[GeronL]

No one has lost a Constitutional right. A company has decided not to carry a show on 6 radio stations that it owned. Their choice.

[djreece]

Bump for a return to responsibility

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Gloating over the loss of freedoms and usurption of constitutional rights for your neighbor is a myopic ignorance of your own loss.

Howard Stern has every right in the world -- every constitutional right in the world -- to interview lesbian hooker heroin addicts, while simultaneously declaring that George W. Bush is the Anti-Christ.

Howard Stern enjoys NO constitutional right, however, to demand that Clear Channel Communications provide him the air time and/or bandwidth to do so, on their dime.

No "rights" have been "lost," here; no "freedoms "usurped."

[Dec31,1999]

There's a difference between freedom and license.

BTW, thanks for posting the wires through these years. I appreciate it.

[GeronL]

You don't have to thank him, its the only excersize he gets.

JUST KIDDING! Everybody appreciates his hard slog through the rank liberal jungle.

[cherry]

I've heard this "no one is holding a gun to your head" stuff before.....

I am tired of having to limit my choices so people like you can live out your perversions or fantacies.....

for once, let it be YOU GUYS that have to change the channel.....

[sully777]

I agree with RUSH that the pressure to cancel Stern is more than just the free market talking. It's a backdoor way to suppress. I'd love to stay and debate but must sleep. Bye all.

[Dec31,1999]

Stern has always been out of control. That's why his wife left him, eventually. What was her name? Karen?

I always liked his sidekick better than him.

[Qwinn]

Okay. I reread your post. Here's what you said:

"Gloating over the loss of freedoms and usurption of constitutional rights for your neighbor is a myopic ignorance of your own loss."

Well, the only thing anyone is gloating about that any neighbor has had usurped is the ability to listen to Howard Stern. You refer to this as an usurpation of constitutional rights. If you're claiming that this does not equate listening to Howard Stern to a constitutional right, you're going to have to explain how, cause reading your post a thousand times isn't going to change what it quite clearly says.

Or is the neighbor in question Howard Stern himself? Heh. You think -his- constitutional right is violated? What constitutional right? Was he making a political statement? A religious statement? Any statement meant to clarify, elucidate or otherwise -make a point-? No, he was being a disgusting pig. I -never- bought into the line that the founding fathers -meant- to extend utter freedom towards pornography, that was a little invention that never even -occurred- to anyone until 200 years after the Constitution was written. Now, do I care if erotica is out there? No, not really. In fact, let's put the whole pornography thing aside, and let's assume for the moment that I -do- think it's protected by the constitution.

What you seem to want is for Clearwater's right to NOT air Howard Stern to be infringed. You seem to think that once they hire him to be on the air, he can say whatever he wants and offend as many people as possible, and... they... can... NEVER... fire him.

I would say it's you trying to take away rights. The right of the decision makers at Clearwater to run their business the way they want, and to fire a misbegotten scumbag like Stern if they want.

That's my view.

If Stern wants to spew his filth, he can go do it on a street corner or on an internet website. No one's freedom of speech is infringed by not being a top-billed radio star. Howard Stern has not one more constitutional right to be on the radio than I do. If his rights are now infringed, then so have mine, my entire life. Maybe I should sue Clearwater for not letting me on the air, whatcha think? Heck, I won't even be disgusting when I do it.

Qwinn

[Dec31,1999]

LOL!

Hey! But nobody can claim that we don't get enough exercise to our wrists!

[sully777]

Well I haven't logged off yet. Ummm, Cherry. Reread my first post. I don't listen to Stern. I haven't listened to him for 19 years. Don't like him anymore. Actually, I don't know where to find him if I was inclined to listen.

Good night all

[DoughtyOne]

They air his show on E Channel. I've tuned in a few times to see what the hype is all about. Each show appeared as you described.

For the life of me, I can't understand why these women go on the show.

The last time I tuned in, about a year ago, there was a very nice looking young woman on. Stern and his degenerate crew and some even more degenerate guests were critiqing women. After complimenting a number of women with square breasts, this very attractive doll came on the set.

Stern and his crew and guests proceded to rip this young woman to shreds. She finally left in tears.

She appeared to be all natural, with a nice figure and, nice personality. Unlike the other women on the show, this one appeared to be someone you might ask out. The others were raspy.

Stern seems to be tolerated by the left. For the life of me, I do not understand why. All the media outlets that I've addressed exploit women to the max, yet Stern and those outlets get a free pass from the lefties. Why is that?

What is it about this degenerate culture that appeals so much to the left, so much so that the ruination of young children is a small price to pay for them to merchandise filth to?

Thanks for your comments.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

I agree with RUSH that the pressure to cancel Stern is more than just the free market talking.

The fact that said opinion (and that's all it is, clearly; opinion) was voiced by Rush does nothing whatsoever to credibly gainsay any portion of what I wrote in Posting #18.

Howard Stern is no less free today than he was yesterday to degrade and/or repulse, as frequently and in whatever measure as best pleases him. No one has taken that right away from him; he retains it still.

He just isn't doing so on [xxx] number or privately-owned broadcast companies, is all.

Nor has he any "right" -- demonstrably; manifestly -- to demand that said companies be forced to do so, against their will.

Or has Clear Channel have no "rights" whatsoever, in this instance...?

[GeronL]

The left likes Larry Flynt too and they are always defending pornographers 'rights'.

debasing the culture is one of the communist goals for America... remember that list?

[GeronL]

It was only 6 stations for goodness sakes.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

LOL! Doubtless, the poor, hapless degenerate Champion of All That's Good and Right In the World will be reduced to scrounging in grimy, garbage-laden alleyways for old Alpo cans to suck upon for nourishment, in the hellish days and weeks to come! :)

[GeronL]

ADidn't I hear right that this was for 6 stations??

[Reactionary]

Sterm is a plebeian ape. He should be shipped off to France where they enjoy such low-brow stupidity and call it art.

[Texasforever]

This is America not the Soviet Union or Saudi Arabia, right? No one is holding a gun to our heads.

That is correct but the government didn't throw Stern off the air, his boss did. Get it?

[DoughtyOne]

That debasing of the culture 'is' the underlying goal IMO. Nice point.

From the A.N.S.W.E.R. crowd, to those who wish to expunge religion from our public lives, to those who wish to eliminate any penalties for criminal behavior, to those who wish to force acceptance of deviance on others, the theme remains constant.

[Texasforever]

I wonder how this country survived when movies required one foot on the floor when a man and woman were in bed together. When did "sophistication" come to mean grown men acting like over sexed teenagers? When did “adult” entertainment come to mean 2 hours of rutting and the major dialog being how many ways to insert the “F” bomb into daily discourse?

[Prodigal Son]

I agree with Rush too.

[NYCVirago]

If Stern wants to spew his filth, he can go do it on a street corner or on an internet website. No one's freedom of speech is infringed by not being a top-billed radio star. Howard Stern has not one more constitutional right to be on the radio than I do.

Yep. As I wrote on another thread, not only was Dr. Laura's tv show forced off the air due to gay activists, but her radio show is not even broadcast anymore in New York City, the largest media market in the country. Are her free-speech rights being violated?

[Qwinn]

Are her rights being violated?

Honestly, if I thought so, I could make a hell of a better case for her than I could for Stern, because her speech was in the vein of political/religious speech, which is what the 1st Amendment protects, not pornography, which it was never meant to protect.

But no, her rights were not in fact violated, so I don't have to bother.

Qwinn

[NYCVirago]

I agree. My point is that people here are pointing to Stern's suspension as the beginning of a slippery slope which will get people like Limbaugh off the air. But if the slope is there, which I don't think it is, it started with Dr. Laura and Michael Savage losing their TV shows, and Dr. Laura losing her radio show here in New York.

[Mr. Mojo]

Amazing, Dr. Laura isn't broadcast in NYC? If I'm not mistaken, she has the most listened to radio show in the nation .....or at least in the top 3.

[yankeedame]

I've heard this "no one is holding a gun to your head" stuff before.....

I am tired of having to limit my choices so people like you can live out your perversions or fantacies.....

for once, let it be YOU GUYS that have to change the channel.....
=============

Amen!!

We've gone so far in protecting the individual from society that we can no longer protect society from the individual.

[NYCVirago]

Amazing, Dr. Laura isn't broadcast in NYC? If I'm not mistaken, she has the most listened to radio show in the nation .....or at least in the top 3.

She sure is, but she's not aired here, not even on WABC anymore.

[Tamzee]

The pendulum is swinging to the right, let's hope it gets stuck there.

And a big bump to that :-)

[bond7]

For years I've been shocked every time I stumbled onto Stern's show, wondering how in the world we got to this point. So goodbye, Howard, you're OUT of Orlando.

I heard a debate on the subject today - forget which show. A knowledgeable person, (I believe he was an attorney), said this is absolutely not censorship because Stern can go onto cable or whatever - just not the free public airways. Sounds just about right.

[oceanperch]

BIG BUMP

[LibertarianInExile]

I agree that Clear Channel had the right to do this. What I disagree with was that everyone here seems to think that the airwaves are some public thing, that they shouldn't have been privatized a long time ago. The FCC, and the feds in general, hold power and properties that government shouldn't in a country where information is supposed to be free and the people are supposed to own property individually, not collectively, and not subject to government approval of those property rights every year. What happens when Hillary's FCC starts objecting to racism, sexism, and 'homophobia,' and threatens fines against Clear Channel for those? Will you all be dancing about Rush's removal? I bet.

So pardon me if I rain on your picnic by pointing out that what goes around, comes around. It's just a matter of time until the next swing of the headsman's axe to the left with the FCC deciding what's decent and what ain't, and next time the left gets in there, they'll be pissed at being out of power so long.

This was our chance to remove government intervention for good. Instead we make it easier for the Left to get involved. The Fairness Doctrine was peanuts compared to what will come next. Good move, Mr. Powell.

[Fighting Irish]

Good stuff, John...as usual.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

No one has lost a Constitutional right. A company has decided not to carry a show on 6 radio stations that it owned. Their choice.

Under pressure from the government.
No one "lost a Constitutional right" under the Stamp Act, either.

Unless, of course, you support government coercion.

[Robert_Paulson2]

correctomundo.