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.

---

[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.