Replies

Censoring radio shows for whatever reason, coupled with the federal election censorship of politically related "free speech" prior to elections, signed into law by president Bush could be used to assert that the "first amendment" has been negatively impacted by team Bush/Ashcroft... and I think it will be asserted by the left. This is actually dangerous politically, janet jackson nipplesnotwithstanding.

the social cons will quickly applaud aspects of this that conform to their religious morality... but will be rather surprised in coming years when the very same laws, rules and regs are used to stiffle their freedom of speech in ways not yet envisioned by rational folks.

the question asked by key free speech advocacy groups will be: How has our freedom of speech been impacted during the current administration?

the question asked by certain gun rights advocates will be:
How has our right to keep and bear arms been impacted by the current administration?

the question asked by those of us with immigration concerns will be: How has illegal immigration been impacted by the current administration?

and on and on.
The majority of Americans who don't approve of Stern's crap, know they can always turn him over... and may NOT take kindly to the overall concept of government turning him off for us, via arm twisting at Clear Channel, by fcc decency police.

add to that some politcal censorship prior to the upcoming elections... and we have the makings for a popular revolt against "CENSORSHIP" of free speech... whether or not it's fair.

Censoring radio shows for whatever reason, coupled with the federal election censorship of politically related "free speech" prior to elections, signed into law by president Bush could be used to assert that the "first amendment" has been negatively impacted by team Bush/Ashcroft... and I think it will be asserted by the left. This is actually dangerous politically, janet jackson nipplesnotwithstanding.

Most of the latest self-righteous moral outrage over broadcasting has come from CONGRESS, not "the Bush Administration".

See the problem is that the FCC has no standards. All radio and television broadcasters - to borrow a phrase from Animal House - are always on double secret probation. They never know what they will be fined for and for what reason. The FCC is totally arbitrary in their censorship criteria. When you live under a system where no rules are in place beyond the whims of the overlord it is a tyranny. If you want broadcast standards to be fair - write them down so people know what is allowed and what is not.

"add to that some politcal censorship prior to the upcoming elections... and we have the makings for a popular revolt against "CENSORSHIP" of free speech... whether or not it's fair."

While I agree with most of what you said above this snippet...I think you're assigning the "popular revolt" in the wrong direction. From what I've seen, it has been the populous which has been pushing for this censorship. From CFR to "the boob"...it is the people who have been crying foul. One can only hope we will find some balance, but for for now, it appears this is what the people are demanding.