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

[reademnweep]

But I AM sick and tired ...I am too.

If you don't like it, change the channel!" ...I do

objectionable cultural crap..... you decided for you.

All we have gained by our moral libertarianism is that bad taste has become the public norm...... Public norm is way overstated. Bad taste does exist though.


Did our founding fathers really fight for 'freedom of speech' so that the F-word (and worse) can be said freely in public? ..... What other words should we eliminate? God? Christ? Jesus? these are offensive words to some.

[Sabertooth]

Yeah, it's like when you're at the checkout at the market, and that Cosmo headline blurts

"Nine New Orgasm Tricks for your Boyfriend...
and Two for your Husband!"

Or the viagra billboards with male and female feet sticking out from under the sheets. I don't want or need to see that, and neither does my kid or most decent folk.

[Prodigal Son]

Our society can't set standards of decency? Where did this idea come from? Can we not differentiate between political speech and smut? The logic of Rush's position eludes me.

The way I heard Rush define it- once the anti-Bush conservatives and the liberals succeed in getting John Kerry elected, perhaps conservative speech will be defined as being indecent. Then, it's no more Rush Limbaugh. Rush offends a great many people- this is no secret. I think Rush rightly recognizes that as repugnant as he might find Stern, they are in the same boat together.

[Mo1]

I'm still wondering why of all people some are defending Stern?

Stern wanted to shock people .. well he got what he wished for .. and now he's complaining about it

[Sabertooth]

Stern wanted to shock people .. well he got what he wished for .. and now he's complaining about it

You think so?

I think that Stern was just po'd that he'd been replaced as a broadcast bad-boy by the Mickey Mouse kid from N'synch.

This is publicity.

[cyncooper]

Well, Rush needs to realize it's not just Stern. I did listen to him very briefly today and even he acknowledged this was not censorship regarding Stern, but a business decision by Clear Channel. Then he added his "but".

What I am arguing is in addition to Stern. Starting that grotesque Super Bowl show, the "f" word being flung out on award shows (My daughter just plain is not permitted to watch award shows. I do watch them, But she can't. It's too bad, because when I was growing up I enjoyed the Oscars and seeing the movie star dresses. Now the dress might be completely see-through and no undies).

I'll even say news is not watchable. They'll be covering the gay marriage issue. Not only are the words unacceptable for young ears, but they include footage of same-sex kissing. Not sure there is control for that, I plead for the execs airing this to use common sense.

Ack

[Skip Ripley]

Sorry sheik, all I know is that he's dead and has been for at least a couple of years. (I think it's been that long anyway)

[Prodigal Son]

The airwaves are not privately owned - they belong to the American people, who have a say in who uses it and what it is used for - that's why the government is involved, and rightly so.

An interesting side note here. You know, I have never heard Rush's show on anything besides the internet. I've never heard Howard's show at all but assume I could hear it via internet. Same with Matt Drudge- only ever heard him on the internet.

The distinction between 'airwaves' and 'internet bandwidth' is being blurred more and more everyday. Wireless internet? Where does this fall- 'airwaves' or 'traditional cable/wire communication'?

This blurring of the two will come with profound implications.

For example, pretty much anything goes on the internet- nobody here on FR would really argue against that. What is the internet? Really, it's just a transmission of bits and bytes from one place to another. Data. The internet is a transmission of data. It's out there, open to everyone to access with very little government intervention (when compared to television and radio).

Radio is also a transmission of data when you get right down to it and the internet version of data is even more ubiquitous than is the 'open radio'. It seems odd that there should be two different standards for what is essentially the same thing- bits and bytes.

[hchutch]

The thing is, this is one of those areas where conservative values collide.

On the one hand, you have the values of decency and virtue - Bill Bennett's pet issues, if you will. Howard Stern's off-color comments make for a very interesting feud on that front.

On the other hand, you have the value of little government intervention in the marketplace and the lives and choices of individual citizens. While the broadcast airwaves are a public resource, the stations compete with each other to atttract listeners. There is also the conservative disdain for the nanny state, personal responsibility, freedom of speech, and this thing called common sense/being realistic.

For me, it does not hurt to compare and cotnrast radio with TV. Look at TV, there are limited options (EIGHT broadcast stations where I am - ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, WB, UPN, PBS, and PAX). However, there are dozens of radio stations in the area I live (I'd guesstimate it at sixty) - I have several programmed for what I want to listen to, be it sports talk shows, music, Howard Stern, Sean Hannity/Rush Limbaugh, news, and a lot of other things, too.

With radio, I would probably think basic cable is a better comparison than broadcast TV. Yeah, they sell advertising, and you don't need to pay a monthly fee for it, but at the same time, the variety available (at least where I live) is such that some show a person finds offensive (be it Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh) can be avoided with relatively little effort, partially due to the many choices available.
If I don't like what is on MTV, I can turn to History Channel, Discovery, ESPN, or some other channel. I would probably have radio covered under similar regulations to basic cable in terms of decency.

It's one of those issues where people can make a conservative case either way - kick Howard Stern off the air because his show is WAY off-color on the one hand, or keep him on - after all, you're not FORCED to listen to his show.

[Qwinn]

Right. And Rush already gets fired whenever he says anything that approached 1% of what Stern said. I mean think about it. What Rush is actually claiming, and you people are supporting, is that, in a world where Rush got canned for a comment that wasn't even a -little- racist, Stern should get away with talk about screwing famous black women, watermelon references and n****er references on his program. You're screaming for a double standard to be applied.

I swear, you people are nuts. Conservative speech is -already- censored. Has been. For years! And you people are acting like if we nail Stern, oh my God, then they'll be REALLY mean to conservatives. BIT LATE NOW! It's already happened! I can't imagine any way they could silence conservatives any more than they have. Well, okay, yes, I can imagine worse ways, but those ways would basically have to be so absolutely brutal that it would actually reveal the Democrat establishment for what it is, and maybe, finally, you Stern-idiots could be upset by something other than a limiting of the word "p**sy". Cause I really don't think you Stern idiots will ever care about any infringement of speech on conservatives until you see billy clubs come cracking down on people's heads. You've never given a -damn- before.

Qwinn

[Prodigal Son]

Pretty soon the FCC will become irrelevant. Radio will no longer be primarily over airwaves but will be through Internet servers. Instead of the finite frequencies, there are an infinite amount of resources to transmit through. The costs of setting up a radio station will be small, wireless Internet radio receivers will become ubiquitous. How is the government going to control that?

Exactly.

Side note:

A good book to read on this for background is 'Being Digital' by a fellow named Negroponte. He goes into this topic pretty well in my opinion.

[PRND21]

I have a child and agree with you. I use discretion.

[Doctor Stochastic]

A few years ago (I don't remember the context) one of the "Commentators" (I think it was Ted Kopperl, maybe Sam Donaldson) pointed out that Rush was the only guy defending freedom of speech and the press on some topic. I was surprised but the guy did say the the "regulars" had let everyone down and Limbaugh did step up to the plate.

Rush also defended Springer's right to do news broadcasts.

Unfortunately, many (both on the Left and Right) confuse rights with tastes. Too many people feel their most important right is not to feel offended.

[Cooter]

The only real difference is that the "public airwaves" are considered a limited resource due to the way bandwidth is allocated. The internet, for all intents and purposes, can be considered unlimited - meaning that you can "broadcast" something without interfering with someone elses broadcast. I, for one, would like to see the public bandwidth allocation transitioned from a fixed-frequency model to a spread-spectrum model. This would allow for a much more efficient utilization of the public resources and would free up tons of broadcasting room.

[Prodigal Son]

It's called standards of decency.

Here's a little thought experiment for you. I quite enjoy it.

Censorship in the name of decency means there has to be an actual human being somewhere who makes the decision, yes? Ok. The underlying assumption is that this human is qualified to decide what is decent and what not. Ok, fine so far.

Why not establish an official censorship school that gives an official US Seal of Approval complete with certificate that 'This Person __________ is qualified as a censor...'

Next, we send everybody in the country through this course and let every single person become a qualified censor.

Would it then be ok to let the individual decide what he could watch and what not? Or would you still want some third party deciding for you? And remember- you'd be an officially sanctioned censor yourself in this case.

It's just something to think about.

I say I am already qualified to censor my own content. I have no need for the government guy. However, if you yourself do not feel qualified to censor your own content- I understand.

[Dolphy]

They just want to get kudos so they can help demolish any regulations that would keep them from gobbling up even more stations, letting them further spread their mediocrity.

I will agree with on them looking for kudos...removing Stern, however, makes them no more mediocre.

[cyncooper]

Keep reading the thread. There is more to chew on, and besides, this isn't "censorship".

[cyncooper]

It's just something to think about.

And save the superior implication that I haven't thought about it.

[Stone Mountain]

If it weren't for the FCC, a few conglomerates could build a few dozen million-watt transmitters that would control the entire broadcast dial, and broadcast hardcore porn 24/7, if they so chose.

As opposed to what we have now - a few conglomerates that own almost all of the radio stations that brodacast 24/7 with content restricted by the government. I prefer to let the market rule. Content that is objectionable to enough people won't get aired. And people would have to (horrors) make up their own minds as to what is and isn't appropriate to listen to.

[Dianna]

I think Rush rightly recognizes that as repugnant as he might find Stern, they are in the same boat together.

This is absolute nonsense. We ARE seeing a stifling of conservative political speech. But it has nothing to do with upholding decency standards! Political speech has been under attack for much longer.

Do we have NO standards, then? Hustler sitting right next to Newsweek? I can stand on a street corner with a bullhorn and describe sex acts?

In addition to shutting off the tv, turning off the radio, not going to movies, am I to avoid grocery stores and public sidewalks?

Why do YOU get the right to shove YOUR notion of morality on me, but I have to shut up and walk away? Can't we compromise? You can buy Hustler, but it won't be placed in an area the general public is going to walk past. You can listen to Stern in full on satellite radio, just like cable.