Posted on 03/07/2002 7:51:58 AM PST by codebreaker
That pig Howard Stern will pay for his bigotry. It's just a matter of time and priorities right now.
And I'm glad to see you have enough faith in the government to allow (you use the word temerity) them to ban what they consider to be obscene.
"...but Grumpster is in a different place than what you describe - he would deny a public forum to those whose views *he* deems "immoral". Sorry, that scares me. And, respectfully, using a religious test to determine what can be seen or heard *is* theocratic."
I really do wish you would stop trying to "interpret" me... The article this post is based on calls for a "boycott" of Howard Stern. That is what I am advocating. This is still the U.S.A. and I would never seek to deny Howard his right to free speech... or his "right" to make a ton of money for his rantings. But I don't have to support his views; And I certainly don't have to support the people who pay him to insult me, or the sponsors who want to sell his target-audience a bunch of stuff!
Now as to using (or being afraid of) a "religious test"... as opposed to what?
Perhaps we should all follow Kwesi Mfunes or Jesse Jacksons tests...Just call anyone who disagrees with you a "racist."
If that doesn't interest you...How about the homosexual lobby test... Call anyone who doesn't agree with a "homophobe" or "jack-booted nazi!"
Still not interested?...How about the NOW test...call anyone who respects life "Anti-choice!"
Still not enough? How about the democrat test...call anyone who disagrees with you a "right wing extremist out to destry the children."
How about the traditional Middle Eastern test... "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Or maybe we should just use Howard Sterns test... Anyone who disagrees with me is to be mocked and humiliated, live on coast-to-coast radio or TV!
So your argument is just a WHINE until you spell out exactly which "test" you would apply and how that test "respects" all of the other tests.
By the way...I never said there should be a "religious test" ...The test is whether a personality thinks he/she should respect the audience...not demanding the audience respect them as a pre-condition! Howard Stern fails misarably on both counts!
Finally, please show me in the Constitution where the owner of a "public forum" is obligated to give access to anyone who wishes it...Even if it is Howard Stern! Please tell me again, why advertisers must support Howard? I missed that part in your rant against me.
Not at all. I was born and raised Catholic, went to Catholic school for 8 years and got a good education (never encountered any pedophiles), and I still have great respect and admiration for the good works of the Catholic Church.
I just have no respect at all for any "religious" person, Catholic or otherwise, that supports a censorial, anti-First Amendment agenda, as Donohue does. He can't even use the excuse of "protecting the chillrn", as the proposed Stern show would air at 11:30 ET, so his anti-freedom agenda is quite clear.
This is what I have an issue with...the words "continuing to allow", should I read it differently, who would determine what is allowed and not allowed. I can only surmise from your words that it would have something to do with the level of immorality, or how negative it was to the Christian faith. This is not boycott language, I don't hear talk about pressure being brought to bear on advertisers in your posts.
I have never watched or listened to howard stern, because I heard enough of that cr^% when I was in high school.
Perhaps your words "continuing to allow" were as poorly chosen as my using the term "theocracy"?
I agree, perhaps the words were poorly chosen. So let's let it end at that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.