Skip to comments.Opie and Anthony -- A Threat To Us All
Posted on 05/11/2007 3:30:28 AM PDT by Kaslin
Drudge posted this yesterday. Since it appeared on Drudge, you can rest assured that by today everybody in a position of power over radio that would be politicians have either heard it or heard about it.
What am I talking about? Its an excerpt from the Opie and Anthony show on XM Satellite radio. These two pigs were once on broadcast radio, but they lost their jobs when they thought it might be cute to send some listeners out to have sex in a church.
Now before I give you a link .. I want to warn you what youre about to hear is vile, repulsive and disgusting. These two jerks had someone on their show named Homeless Charlie. The person was either black or using a black accent. Charlie begins to discuss having sex with Condi Rice. In fact, what he was talking about was raping the Secretary of State. Then, in similarly vulgar terms, he talked about having sex with Laura Bush and the Queen of England. When you click on this link (if the server isnt slammed by now) youre going to hear extremely disgusting language so be prepared. If you cant handle it, just leave it alone and continue with the rest of the column. OK, heres the link.
So... how did you like that? Pretty pathetic, wasnt it? This was the product of two extremely immature and sick people trying to be cute by seeing just how far they can push the envelope.
Now I dont know what other radio hosts might have to say about this today, but I most certainly have something on my mind, and if you chose to read on youre going to get an earful.
These two pathetic fools need to be removed from XM satellite radio right now. Today. No suspension. No warning. Fire them. Now.
By the end of the day today youre going to hear liberals in congress and the media referring to these two morons as talk show hosts. Comparisons will be drawn between them and people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage and myself. Youll hear the phrases hate speech and hate radio over and over again as these leftists push their Stalinist-inspired plans to destroy conservative and libertarian talk radio. By the time the dust has settled the majority of the people in this country --- who dont by the way, listen to talk radio --- will absolutely believe in their hearts that this Opie and Anthony stunt is representative of all talk radio, and these people will be eager to support their politicians in their goal to shut us all down.
Right now we have a little gem called H.R. 3302, the Media Ownership Reform Act, in the congress. H.R. 3302 is a project of DC Democrats who know that conservative talk radio constitutes a real threat to their plans for total victory in 2008. If H.R. 3302 were to become law, talk radio as you know it would be dead inside of nine months. Period. Thanks to the antics of these two idiots there will be more congressmen who will be willing to join in this and other efforts to control broadcast radio and, incidentally, to control satellite broadcasting as well.
Over the years there have been no shortages of politicians, from both sides of the aisle, who have wanted to initiate more government control of content on satellite radio and TV. Power-hungry politicians around the world know that one of the keys to gaining and then holding political power is to control the means by information is disseminated to the population. U.S. politicians know that theyre chances of exercising direct government control over the printed media that, for those of you who went to government schools, would include newspapers are limited to slim and none. We have the First Amendment to thank for that. But by the time broadcasting came around politicians were savvy enough to find a way around the First Amendment in their goal of controlling broadcast content. The created this ridiculous fiction of the publics airwaves and have exploited that asinine idea to their benefit for years. Now theyre working to increase that control through H.R. 3302 and, at the same time, considering ways to spread their censorship agenda to satellite radio. After all, dont those satellite signals come through those very same airwaves that the politicians claim are owned by the people?
Opie and Anthony just gave these control-freak politicians a huge bit of leverage with their crude little skit about raping the Secretary of State and the First Lady. Oh .. and throw in the Queen also. What fun. What incredible talents these two jerks are.
Those of us in talk radio, both broadcast and satellite owe it to our country and to our listeners to rise up in outrage against these disgusting shock jocks and demand their immediate dismissal from XM. If XM doesnt want to act then we should consider canceling our subscriptions. Im serious. I mean it.
And dont give me that free speech nonsense either. I know that many of you were educated by the government, but you dont have to go around advertising it, do you? The free speech guarantees of the First Amendment only apply to actions by government, not by private entities. The government cannot use its exclusive franchise on the right to use force in order to prevent you from speaking our mind but your employer damn sure can. Not by force, mind you, but by job action. Free speech does not mean that you have the right to say anything you please on any radio station or any private satellite cannel. Whoever owns and controls that station and/or satellite has every right in the world to control content. Opie and Anthony are content. XM ought to show some responsibility now today.
Get rid of them --- before their virus spreads.
Neal Boortz is a talk show host and columnist for Townhall.com as well as co-author of The FairTax Book .
LOL! So, they're not responsible for the content on their program? You mean, they were struck with paralysis while this guy was ranting on and couldn't turn off the mike? That must be it. They were numb with moral outrage at this guy describing a rape fantasy of Condoleeza Rice!
Come on. Free speech doesn't apply to defamation. You must know that.
Well first, anything if repeated often becomes unfunny. Second what you described is harassment.
Somewhere on a radio station someone is saying something that angers me. How can I find these people and how can I get them fired?
Joking about rape isn’t defamation.
The relevant section is this:
"`(a) Public Interest Obligation to Cover Publicly Important Issues- A broadcast licensee shall afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance. The enforcement and application of the requirement imposed by this subsection shall be consistent with the rules and policies of the Commission in effect on January 1, 1987.'."
In other words, the Bill includes an attempt to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine.
The Wikipedia article on the Fairness Doctrine says, in part:
"In 1986 the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a loose interpretation by the FCC of an aspect of the Fairness Doctrine, ruling that Congress had "never made the doctrine a binding requirement." In August 1987, the Commission abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in its Syracuse Peace Council decision. The FCC insisted that the doctrine had grown to inhibit rather than enhance debate and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace at the time, the doctrine was perceived to be unconstitutional.
"In the spring of 1987 Congress attempted to contest the FCC vote and restore the Doctrine (S. 742, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987)), but the legislation was vetoed by President Reagan. Another attempt to resurrect the doctrine in 1991 ran out of steam when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto."
The article also points out that:
"It has been routinely criticized by conservatives in the media as a means of keeping their views from being expressed or of deliberately cutting their available air time in half."
This is the reason why some of us are concerned by anything that gives ammuntion to those arguing in favor of this Bill.
WELL SAID, sauropod! This is not about punishing an exercise in "poor taste." This is about the necessity of defeating what is evidently a conspiracy to control speech -- which is, of course, utterly unconstitutional. In talk radio, the Left couldn't "compete"; so it wants to "defeat." The next target will be the Internet.
Who said it has to be funny to be entertaining. There are probably enough perverts who would find the 60-second rape fantasy of your mother extremely entertaining. Should it be protected free speech?
Second what you described is harassment.
And what Opie and Anthony had on wasn't harassment? Harassment is subjective. If everyone finds a rape fantasy of your mother great entertainment, who's to say it's harassment?
At least they didn’t say nappy. THAT would have been too much.
See, you’re being so silly over this it’s funny. Feel free to keep overexagerating and acting silly. Even if it does involve talking about raping my mother your babling is hilarious.
The more ridiculous you get. The funnier it gets.
Denigrating jokes can absolutely constitute defamation.
According to WordWeb
1. A malicious attack
2. An abusive attack on a person's character or good name
I agree wholeheartedly. Sometimes they are absolutely hilarious, sometimes they are just too much for me. But just because someone else doesn’t like it doesn’t mean they should decide that I can’t listen to it. That’s problem I have with people demanding that someone be fired. These people obviously aren’t fans and don’t listen to the show, yet they think they can decide what I listen to.
If you don’t like it, don’t listen to it. I don’t listen to Air America on XM, but I don’t demand that XM remove them from their line-up.
Condi wasn’t attacked. Now was her character defamed.
I want to steal your car radio! Now point to the defamation in that sentence.
The more ridiculous you get. The funnier it gets.
LOL - because you know it's true. The free speech mantra stops at your front stoop, doesn't it? So, while you're excoriating Boortz for wanting these guys off the air for their repugnant, vile show (which you apparently enjoy), I'm just curious if you would be so supportive if some guy with a bullhorn stood outside your house and broadcast his rape fantasy and brought pain and suffering to your family.
If you don't know the answer to that, well...
Really! Again. What if it was your mother? Can you really sit there with a straight face and tell me if someone on XM radio described the same rape fantasy about your mother, you wouldn't consider that an attack on your mother's dignity and reputation?
Of course there's no defamation in that sentence. The subject is my car radio, not me. If these guys had a fantasy about stealing Condi's purse, that's not defamation, either. Casting her as someone worthy of being raped? That's defamation.
> OK, we are talking about free speech here.
> What is the greater outrage — to demand someone be fired or to joke about a woman being raped?
Neither. We don’t live in a Puritanical world anymore. I sometimes wish we did, but we don’t. We are confronted with outrageous, tasteless behavior all the time. It’s part of living in a free society. My point is that while joking about raping a woman is inappropriate for church, it’s what you’d expect from a shock jock. If you don’t like it, don’t go there. Don’t fire O & A, just switch the station and make your views known to XM—although if you’re not an XM subscriber or O & A listener to begin with, it’s none of your business.
And it’s hilarious how you so badly misunderstand basic metahoric relationships.
A guy stalking me with a bullhorn harassing my mother is not akin to a homeless guy talking about wanting to rape a woman he’ll never get within a mile of.
Do me a favor. Go to a blog I don’t visit and talk about all the horrible things you want to do to my mother. I’ll sit here and wait for it to hurt my feelings.
You seriously don’t understand the definition of defamation. The Pope should give ya a shiner for such silliness.
Dopey and Apathy are terrible all right... a terrible bore. That’s why I don’t tune in to them. I’m not sure Neil intended this indictment of HR3302 to read like such a howling screed in favor of censorship. Yes, the column is trying to draw an ironic parallel to what the lefties will try to do to talk radio, but it’s rather poorly done and has confused most readers, it seems.
It really is a sign of the times. A woman's honor was once something that was worthy of defending. You can't even find moral outrage in the above hypothetical scenario because all you care about is your own "feelings", and not the assault on the dignity of your mother, my mother, anyone's mother - whoever it is. That's just sad.
If you say so, Bogey!
Because, what people say about public officials that I am not forced to listen to or come across has no bearing on me at all.
Yeah, lets give Opie and Anthony what for by giving them lots of free publicity.
Hmmm. . .seems to me he is just expressing an opinion, not dictating to you what you should listen to.
It is perfectly acceptable for someone to call for their firing. Free speech and all, ya know.
But it sure is the sign of a psychotic personality.
> What would your opinion be of free speech as your family honor is desecrated for the purpose of “entertainment”? Shrug your shoulders? Oh well? It’s their right?
There are laws governing harassment, libel and defamation, but I don’t think that’s what you’re talking about. I do admire Condi Rice greatly. She showed great strength facing up to the Dems on the Foreign Relations Committee who tried to bully her around in the confirmation hearings. Condi is so far above O & A that I would indeed expect her to shrug it off.
> Im just curious if your idea of free speech only applies to people you dont know...
To take a personal example, I live in Massachusetts and have become inured to the personal abuse showered upon me by people shocked to discover that a Republican is in their midst.
no offense, but I think you missed the boat on what he’s saying in this article. He’s not dictating what people should and shouldn’t listen to. He’s saying that with this bill, the libs will use these guys’ stupidity to lump ALL of talk radio (Air America not included) into one basket and ban it. It’s no secret that libs would gleefully sacrifice one of thier own to eliminate 2, 3, 10 of ours. Regardless of O&A’s political stand, left or right, they can, and judging by this bill most likely will, be used as a tool to ban free speech.
> The relevant section is this:
> “(a) Public Interest Obligation to Cover Publicly Important Issues- A broadcast licensee shall afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance....
Thanks. I wonder if the the Dems don’t realize that this could backfire. I mean PBS, for example, would have to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance. Or are they exempt from presenting any opinion but thier own? :)
It could indeed backfire, but there is a fairly easy, albeit intellectually dishonest (but when has that stopped a Leftist?), way of finessing that requirement:
Suppose that I am a presenter on a PBS "current affairs" program. Suppose further that I wish to propagate some nonsensical thesis (that human activity is causing the Global climate to heat up, for example). What I do is to arrange a discussion between two advocates of positions respectively for, and against, my thesis. However, the person I choose to represent the case I support will be articulate, well-informed and charismatic, while his/her opponent will be some half-baked conspiracy-theorist dredged from the nether reaches of some group widely seen as ridiculous. (I will, of course, make sure that this person's affiliation is clearly stated; it would also help if English is not this person's first language). I will pretend to be a neutral, disinterested arbiter who, during the course of this "debate", will come to be persuaded of the view that I already held.
This is a technique for which the BBC has been notorious for at least the past 40-odd years.
Now suppose that you are the popular, well-known host of a radio talk show. Absent the Fairness Doctrine, you can, at your leisure, refute my entire program point-by-point, revealing my bias and dishonesty in the process. (This is why such techniques are not as successful as they might otherwise be at present).
However, under the Fairness Doctrine, you would be required to grant me "equal time" to rebut your refutation, thus at the very least diluting its effect.
All-in-all, I think it is best that the abomination known as the Fairness Doctrine remain an historical curiosity, never to be re-enacted.
You’re saying that a revival of the fairness doctrine would not cause See BS to stop shilling for the DNC?
I find it amazing that no one from Maryland is sponsoring this bill. I guess I should count my blessings.
People like me would stop listening to talk radio, since we wouldn't want to put up with liberal crap half the time, causing the format to tank. While technically not censorship, talk radio would risk being dead.
Boortz sounds like he’s surprised that such things have been going on like this since Howard Stern appeared on the scene. So, Boortz is advocating that folks should be fired any old time he gets offended? That’s text book liberalism. . . Besides, wouldn’t it be nice if The Wall Banger, Hush Bimbo & Opie and Anthony vanished from broadcasting all together? If the left wants to bring back the fairness doctrine, HR 3302, RT-D2, or whatever else, don’t you think that their ideas will be labeled just as easily as “hate speech?” Let them hang themselves with their own rope. Imus for president!
Kalsin, just want to tell you I appreciate your bringing up these issues for discussion. I think these two should have been fired instantly. I read part of the transcript of their show, and it was so disgusting, shocking, violent and misogynistic, I could not finish it. This is beyond the typical vulgarity of satellite radio, it’s openly advocating rape!
There is another story about “Shock Jocks fired over comments” (I thought was on Drudge a few days ago). I opened it, assuming it would be about this Condi rape scenario, and was amazed it was a COMPARATIVELY harmless joke by two other radio hosts, making fun of Asian-Americans.
Granted, that is offensive, but not nearly as bad as acting out a horrifically violent and illegal attack on an actual living person.
Please read my response again.....I meant just the opposite.....
Boortz is an aging professional pot stirrer, first and foremost. He'll take whatever stance he needs to to keep his show. Did you know he's got a book to sell you? He's oreilly without the ratings.
I was sure I put a :) at the end of “No way,” in my other post, but I see it is not there. I’m sorry, I didn’t make my statement clear.
I recall the fairness doctrine from growing up outside New York City. The music stations on the radio applied it by airing very mild religious shows on Sunday morning. The tv stations would run at least one news story a week that did not trash conservatives. Then they would give some moonbat a minute to rant about how the conservative position was evil. I’d like to call it a farce, but it wasn’t funny.
hey boortz i think that people have a desision to listen to what they want i will agree that some times things get out of hand nut still its not like a four year old would be messed up if he listened to o&a but still the genre of o&a is dark humor this means talking about death mental dissabilities and othe obscene things and many people enjoy this just because you find it repulsing does not mean that everyone hates them i am truly dissapointed in your behavior to ward this
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.