LIMBAUGH WARNS OF DANGER TO FREE SPEECH

Drudge ^ | 2/26/04 | Drudge/Limbaugh

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

LIMBAUGH WARNS OF DANGER TO FREE SPEECH THU FEB 26 2004 12:28:21 ET

THE NATION'S TOP RADIO HOST RUSH LIMBAUGH WARNED OF GROWING GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN BROADCASTING CONTENT.

LIMBAUGH MADE THE COMMENTS AFTER HIS PARENT COMPANY CLEAR CHANNEL DROPPED VIACOM'S HOWARD STERN FROM ITS STATIONS.

'SMUT ON TV GETS PRAISED. SMUT ON TV WINS EMMYS. ON RADIO, THERE SEEMS TO BE DIFFERENT STANDARDS,' LIMBAUGH EXPLAINED.

'I'VE NEVER HEARD HOWARD STERN. BUT WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GETS INVOLVED IN THIS, I GET A LITTLE FRIGHTENED.

'IF WE ARE GOING TO SIT BY AND LET THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GET INVOLVED IN THIS, IF THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO 'CENSOR' WHAT THEY THINK IS RIGHT AND WRONG... WHAT HAPPENS IF A WHOLE BUNCH OF JOHN KERRYS, OR TERRY MCAULIFFES START RUNNING THIS COUNTRY. AND DECIDE CONSERVATIVE VIEWS ARE LEADING TO VIOLENCE?

'I AM IN THE FREE SPEECH BUSINESS. ITS ONE THING FOR A COMPANY TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE PARTY TO IT. ITS ANOTHER THING FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DO IT.'

MORE

[eno_]

The government is leaning on Clear Channel. The government routinely leans on broadcasters. Why do you think the lamestream press does not cover much of what is discussed on FR? Why do they parrot the government line on "AMERITHRAX" when it is obviously a dry hole? The same goes for dozens of other stories. Or look at it this way: If government regulation of radio content is good, why shouldn't Free Republic be licensed by a government agency?

[gdani]

Anything goes, and if decent people don't like it, they should just stay home and avoid all media.

What "decent people" can do is change the channel. It's (supposed to be) the conservative answer to letting the Govt get involved.

When one tunes into the Howard Stern show they know exactly what to expect. If you don't like it, change the channel.

Or is your concern that other people might like & listen to Stern?

[cyncooper]

It's called standards of decency.

And spare us "this is a conservative forum", in an effort to shoo off disagreement.

[dfwgator]

Hank's dead.

Well being dead certainly is being "vertically challenged." (Unless you are a mummy)

[Publius6961]

The most useful thing you perceive about this thread is the opportunity to bash Rush?
You need to get a life! (and no, I don't listen to him).

[Diddle E. Squat]

Oh my goodness, finally once again enforcing long-standing laws and decency standards will revert us back to the tyrannical 50's, when everyone knows there was no free speech in America. How dare the law be enforced. How dare an owner of stations decide to drop a smut program. We are all doomed.

Clearly the 'Can't shout fire in a theater' rules must be removed ASAP.

[finnman69]

Howard Stern is not Rush Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh is not Howard Stern. They both have nationally sunicated radio programs, at that point the similarity ends.

[Sabertooth]

So, while standing by your absolutely asinine statement that the government had nothing to do with Stern's firing, you praise the government for having something to do with Stern's firing.

The government loves people with the stellar grasp on logic that you are displaying.

They get the leftists to cheer as they silence groups like the NRA or pro-life demonstrators, then they get the dingbats on the right to cheer when they silence Howard Stern.

They gradually seize control of the airways, deciding what you are allowed to hear or say, and you thank them for it. Unbelievable.

The airwaves are licensed to the broadcasters, not sold to them. They are a public resource, and belong to the people. We the people, through the FCC, determine the standards of what is permitted on our airwaves.

Silencing a demonstration is not analogous to regulating broadcast standards.

[journey7873]

we can't blame howard or "friends" for the dumbing down of our culture

Sure we can. The decline of a nation's or an individual's morality will eventually lead to a downfall. Howard Stern and Friends, etc. are all part of the decline of morality.

[cyncooper]

They gradually seize control of the airways, deciding what you are allowed to hear or say, and you thank them for it. Unbelievable.

They loosened control until we are faced with smut everywhere we turn.

They are retaking the reins, and I do thank them for it.

I know you're a Stern fan, and are upset, but I'm sure he can find a forum to provide the entertainment that so many find appealing, but others find offensive.

[Who dat?]

Broadcast media has restrictions. Thats how it always has been and there is nothing shocking or new about it. The FCC is simply not ignoring violations like it has recently. Not ignoring violations is not a threat to free speech, its a return to the norm.

No kidding. Unlike hams that are/were largely self-policing for decades, commercial broadcasters have been competing for decades to see who can push things the furthest without getting clipped.

Meanwhile tons of hams warned, fined, had licenses revoked, and equipment seized for transmitting profanities, disrupting repeaters, transmitting out of band… a variety of things. Evidently according to people here, FCC regs are for the hobbyist.

[gdani]

It's called standards of decency.

Yes -- YOUR standards. Screw everyone else's views, yours should take precedent. Changing the channel certainly isn't the answer.

And spare us "this is a conservative forum", in an effort to shoo off disagreement.

I think you mean like your efforts to shoo off Howard Stern whom you disagree with. I'm not attempting to silence anyone.

[renosathug]

Yes, I agree it had a lot of help, but that's not the point. She and Timberlake were trying to be outrageous and offended a lot of people. I was more offended by her believing I would enjoy her music and her flesh than her actually displaying it.

[cyncooper]

LOL

[Skip Ripley]

Who's standards? Did you or I have a say on who get's appointed at the FCC? Did we have any input on the broadcast codes.

Why are radio stations treated differently than TV stations, the internet and cable? Because no one's gotten around to updating archaic laws.

I don't care for Stern. He bores me to death so I no longer listen to his show. If enough people make that decision his show will disappear like the morning mist. The government need not have a role in that process.

[gdani]

We the people, through the FCC, determine the standards of what is permitted on our airwaves.

Hogwash.

"We the people" can decide what we want to listen to by tuning or not tuning into particular TV shows or radio programs.

I, for one, don't need & never asked for the FCC & our nanny state's guidance in helping me determine my viewing & listening habits.

[cyncooper]

Exactly.

[Sabertooth]

Unfortunately, we seem to have a lobby that is trying to cover up for bad/absent parents.

Let me guess: no kids.

[Mo1]

Yes -- YOUR standards. Screw everyone else's views, yours should take precedent. Changing the channel certainly isn't the answer.

So I guess that means you don't have a problem with Stern describing on air, in detail what a couple of midgets are doing to strippers??

[Dane]

Howard Stern is not Rush Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh is not Howard Stern. They both have nationally sunicated radio programs, at that point the similarity ends

Exactly. Rush talks about current issues and he gives a funny take on the ridiculousness of liberal positions. Rush has better intellect and much more finesse than Howard Stern and his listeners.