Freedom of speech means not having to listen to Howard Stern

townhall.com ^ | 3/17/04 | Kathleen Parker

[F16Fighter]

"If we, as a society, refuse to place any standards of behavior on the most public of people, how can we expect anyone to behave in a civilized manner?"

We can't....

All Stern is and ever was was a cultural jihadist.

His entire "act"?? To mock human dignity and self-respect, while convincing others that it's "entertainment" and "hip" to worship degradation and perversion.

And THIS is why some people are defending and turning Stern some kind of noble martyr? It's pathetic.

[F16Fighter]

" Howard can dump all the dung he wants on the hardwired and satellite stuff."

Let 'em, but when the bullets begin to fly, let's all just point to the First Amendment.

[CalKat]

Did I say he did? I was agreeing with him. Are you now his bodyguard?

[CalKat]

Oooh. See post 57. Someone else was replying to Curly Dave. You better get over there and respond to them.

[HiramAbiff]

"Our cause?"

I'm sorry. Maybe you belong over at DU with the rest of the socialist, terrorist sympathizers. John Kerry thanks you.

[F16Fighter]

"Do you believe that a radio, TV, or other media outlet has the right to broadcast what they wish?"

Huh?? And ignore whatever censorship, obscenity laws, and community decency standards in place? Or are those regulatory entities "too old fashioned" in your opinion?

"How about newspapers and book publishers?

Any opinion on websites or ISP's?"

Be my guest...

Now let me ask YOU a question Batman:

Is there anything wrong with plastering a story and pic of a GIANT penis, it's "partner" across the front page of the New York Times?

Just curious...

[Peach]

Then why ask such a stupid question? Did anyone ever HAVE to listen to Howard Stern? You weren't agreeing with him. I don't think you've ever agreed with a Freeper before in your three months here.

[JTG]

That is just silly talk. Were Republicans supporting Milosevic when they criticized Clinton's policy over there? Of course not.

If people are trying to quash dissent, it shows how uncomfortable they are about the public policy in question.

[JTG]

Howard Stern has worked for Republican candidates for a long time!

He is the reason that Pataki is governor of NY(not that Pataki is great or anything).

He helped Christie Todd Whitman out in NJ.

He helped Rick Lazio out in NY by having him appear on his show, and endorsing him(not that this helped).

Stern has been a Republican for years. He feels that this administration's FCC has gone nuts, and I largely agree with him.

How hard is it to turn off the radio, or change the station, if you don't want to listen to Stern? Not very hard.

People are getting worked up over nothing, and it was not smart for Bush to lose Howard as a friend. Howard has 8 million listeners, and most of them respect his opinion.

[Dan from Michigan]

I don't listen to Howard Stern. I exercise my powers the right way - turning the radio dial.

That's the right way. The big government socialist way is the censorship way. That's damn wrong, especially when the enforcers are unelected bureaucrats.

Not to mention that "Indecency" is extremely subjective. Hell, even deciding what pornography is tends to be subjective. AOL considers guns porn and took town gun rights sites.

[Dan from Michigan]

how long will it be before the RATs gather their strength and boot Rush?

BINGO!

[Dan from Michigan]

There won't be a Free Market if Stern is allowed to spew his anti-Bush filth on the public airwaves.

You contradicted yourself right there.

Criticism of Bush is support for Terrorism.

BS, and I voted for Bush. Criticizing politicans is American as football.

Terrorists want nothing more than to destroy our markets and Freedom of speech.

Agree.

Stern must be silenced in order to save our Freedoms.

Stern doesn' thave that kind of power. If you want Stern silenced by using the market method, that's fine. If you want a bunch of jackbooted thugs who are unelected to silence him, that's wrong, unAmerican, Anti-freedom, and pro-terrorist - since terrorists hate freedom of speech.

[SouthMountainBilly]

Do you believe that a radio, TV, or other media outlet has the right to broadcast what they wish?
Sure. If they have a contract, they can broadcast whatever they want. Stern broke his contract, he should be yanked. It's really simple.

I have less of a problem with nudity and Stern than I do with the sick twisted ideas shows such as Friends represent. At least Stern is honest about his intentions.

how about newspapers and book publishers?
Ditto. They already publish anything they want, I know what books to skip, just like I skip the Noo Yawk Fishwrap.

Any opinion on websites or ISP's?
I triple-guarantee you that you can find any and all manner of filth on-line. That don't stop me from surfing.

IMHO, let people put whatever they want on the air, just advertise first what it is and the market will sort it out. I turned off my TV, I'm sure I'm not the only one either. I watch plenty of R rated movies, after the kiddies are in bed, but I don't trust the TV. My beef is that people think it's cool to 'surprise' us with this crap.

So what's your solution? Daddy Gub'mint telling us all what we can see/hear/speak?

[HiramAbiff]

Criticism from the Right is always...how should I say this...right.

Clinton's policies in Kosovo were disasterous and we are still paying the price. Ninety percent of the time the left is just spewing socialist, appeasing, Anti-American platitudes. The left hates America and wants to destroy it. The Patriots on the Right love America and will do anything to protect it from terrorists and the criminals on the left.

Your equation of the Right and the Left worries me. One is right the other is wrong. It does not cut both ways. You have now applied the cultural relativism you learned in school to politics. You need to see the left much like terrorism. It is Good and Evil my friend. Bush = Good. Clinton = Evil. Kerry = Evil. There is nothing we should not be willing to do in order to fight Evil. Or don't you agree?

[JTG]

No, I don't agree. We shouldn't send troops anywhere unless we are directly threatene, and in imminent danger. I don't think any war this century qualifies except maybe WWII. If you want to go fight "evil" yourself, then feel free to go there. But don't use the government to further your means.

[JTG]

I meant this past century, obviously. No wars this century qualify except Afghanistan, because we were directly attacked, and threatened by Al Quaeda.

I am not convinced that Iraq was a threat.

[JTG]

By the way, many conservatives opposed the war, including Bob Novak. There's nothing wrong with opposing humanitarian missions like Iraq as long as you're consistent. The people I have real problems with are the people who were against Kosovo intervention, and for Iraq intervention, and vice versa. It's pretty hypocritical.

[HiramAbiff]

"You contradicted yourself right there. "

No, I didn't. If we allow the terrorists to win our market system will be destroyed. Stern is enabling terrorists by critisizing Bush. Stern is helping to destroy the market system as well as the rule of law.

"If you want a bunch of jackbooted thugs who are unelected to silence him, that's wrong, unAmerican, Anti-freedom, and pro-terrorist"

I applaud Ashcroft, I applaud the FCC and I applaud those in the private sector who understand that Bush needs to win this election or it is a victory for the Terrorists. I question the clarity of thought and moral judgement of those who are not willing to frame this election in terms of Good and Evil/Right and Wrong.

[JTG]

I also think that you have a little bit to learn about this, judging by your statement earlier in this thread where you said that if you criticize the president, you are supporting terrorism. That's just a ridiculous statement, and you can't back it up.

[HiramAbiff]

Hey, they are not my means. I just sit back and watch and feel glad that the good guys are in power. Hannity is already floating the "suspend-the-election" balloon and seeing how people react. I like it.