Chief skin Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 http://www.howardstern.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Remember this in November. And think of what more will follow when the judges are all conservative appointees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Howard Stern was funny up until about 10 years ago. But his whining nowdays is getting old Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 There is a difference between the market saying something is old where nobody watches it & advertising dries up vs. having the government say "you can't say that!" And by "can't," I mean the gov saying you're breaking the law and we're going to fine you into oblivion. I have to say the Oprah bit is everybit as bad as the Howard Stern bit. Both should be legal. Howard Stern woul have an interesting case of equal protection under the law. Isn't that the basis for the recent overturning of the sodomy laws by the Supreme court? All laws must apply equally to everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 The FCC have has regs in place for decades to prevent potty mouths such as HS to be broadcast over the public "airwaves". They have failed to enforce their own rule & regs. Geeze go figure a gov't agency failing to do it's job. Their is no right whatsoever for people such as HS et al, to use the public airwaves for his schtick. Go utilize another medimum for it. He's free to do it there just not on the taxpayers PA. It's about time the FCC enfored it own DECADES long rules & regs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Stern is dumb. Still, fining him just makes him more popular. Well thought out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Originally posted by Destino Remember this in November. And think of what more will follow when the judges are all conservative appointees. Kerry is on the record for agreeing with the FCC fines and the removal of Stern from clear channel. Now, what were you saying? I thought so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Hog Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 What a difference a 'boob' makes ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 OKay, but how do you reconsile only applying the fines to HS and not Oprah? Does equal protection under the law mean anything? Who else is getting fined? Other question, doesn't this come up against the same problem a porn lawsuit would. You need to get everybody to think what he says is indecent. Clearly not everybody does, because people listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweepea436 Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 He says it best. If you don't like it, exercise your freedom to NOT LISTEN. If people hate him that bad, your best weapon in getting rid of him is to ignore him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 its funny how people who hate him the most, are the ones who listen the most...take notes on how they are offended. Until he was recently in trouble, I totally forgot he was on the radio still. I listen to Mike & Mike or DC101 in the morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweepea436 Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Originally posted by Bufford 3.0 its funny how people who hate him the most, are the ones who listen the most...take notes on how they are offended. Seems that way doesn't it!:bong: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Originally posted by gbear OKay, but how do you reconsile only applying the fines to HS and not Oprah? Does equal protection under the law mean anything? Who else is getting fined? Other question, doesn't this come up against the same problem a porn lawsuit would. You need to get everybody to think what he says is indecent. Clearly not everybody does, because people listen. If I'm not mistaken the fines for HS & others were for stuff they had said a while back (years) not just recently. So Oprah's company might still get fined too. It does take a complaint I believe for the FCC to investigate. But for HS to compare his consistent questionable language to that of Oprah's transgression (s) I think is pretty silly. Community standards are just that community standards. All it takes is one within the community to file a compalint and the investigation begins. It dosen't take 'all" in a community all it takes is one. And there's is "one" in every community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweepea436 Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Originally posted by aREDSKIN If I'm not mistaken the fines for HS & others were for stuff they had said a while back (years) not just recently. So Oprah's company might still get fined too. It does take a complaint I believe for the FCC to investigate. But for HS to compare his consistent questionable language to that of Oprah's transgression (s) I think is pretty silly. Community standards are just that community standards. All it takes is one within the community to file a compalint and the investigation begins. It dosen't take 'all" in a community all it takes is one. And there's is "one" in every community. That doesn't seem strange to you that they are fining him for things said years ago? When the new "indecency" laws haven't officially taken effect yet? I'm not singling you out - Just thinking out loud. I mean think about it, I remember Guns-N-Roses years ago swearing on the Grammy's or something.......are they going to be paying up? It's ridiculous (IMO) to do fine for events in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Clarify something for me. Are those that are whining about this ruling, arguing that Stern should be able to say whatever he wants to say without consequence? Or are you arguing that what he has said does not violate FCC regulations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweepea436 Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 I'm saying that thier "zero tolerance" policy isn't that at all. The are digging YEARS in to HS's past to fine him - But there were 2 cases of profanity on Seacrests show in ONE DAY and nothing was done. They clearly have tunnel vision here. The only person "zero tolerance" applies to is Stern. And I never said that he should be able to say whatever he wants without consequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Okay, so it's a matter of selective enforcement? I concur. That's BS. Either fine them all or none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 That brings up the next question...statute of limitations.... If you do something publicly for years...does the government have a right not to punish or warn...until you've done it many many times....just so they can then fine you for each time you've done it? One can say it was always against the law...but clearly it was not against the law as it was enforced for the past decade plus. Couldn't a good case be made that a law exists as it is enforced. If you chose to change enforcement, you are obligated to prosecute events taking place only after the change in enforcement policy has been made public. It's like changing the law and prosecuting previous actions from before the law change. I realise it's not quite the same, but is there a legal distinction between this and passing a law today against smoking and prosecuting everybody who has smoked for the past ten years? What about all of those laws saying don't smoke within 100 feet of a public (government) building except in smoking shelters (law already exist)? It's never been enforced, but could they fine everybody who has been doing it here at my work for every instance going back to the passing of the law (yes, there are even signs)? I don't think I've heard HS since Highschool...so I won't shed any tears for him being off the air. I just mislike/mistrust political witch hunts where we abuse the process of the law to make a political point. I also tend to have an inherent distrust of prosecuting sensibilities. I find it ironic that many on here who think political correctness is distasteful (others' sensibilities) are so willing to prosecute based solely on their own sensibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Kilmer, I would certainly argue that what HS has been saying has not violated FCC regualtions as they have been enforced over the past decade. Are they against the wording...probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweepea436 Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 "Witch hunt"....I like that "lol". You hit it on the head, that is all I'm getting at. In the grand scheme of things - my life will go on without Howard Stern. I just think they (FCC) are wrong in this case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Originally posted by Johnny 'Luscious' Punani Kerry is on the record for agreeing with the FCC fines and the removal of Stern from clear channel. Now, what were you saying? I thought so... Yeah Johnny, we all know how dems and reps are the same about forcing their morals on everyone. Stern is but one target of this administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 g, I dont doubt it. But I equate it this way. I drive to work on an interstate and drive 75 MPH in a 65 zone. Everyday I pass by a trooper who doesnt pull me over. One day he does. It's a valid stop because I was breaking the law. Doesnt matter that he ignored it other days. Now you will probably say that he cant charge me for the day I did it before, and while true, it's different. IE, If I embezzle money from a company, I can be charged with ALL of the back violations, not just the most recent ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Yeah, but embezzling money is done in secret. When the company/government know about it, they stop it/prosecute it as soon as they have a solid case. In HS case, he's been very public. It's hard to imagine being more public. I simply can't buy that the government needed all this time to put together a case that he was vulgar on a given date. That's rediculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Originally posted by sweepea436 That doesn't seem strange to you that they are fining him for things said years ago? When the new "indecency" laws haven't officially taken effect yet? I'm not singling you out - Just thinking out loud. I mean think about it, I remember Guns-N-Roses years ago swearing on the Grammy's or something.......are they going to be paying up? It's ridiculous (IMO) to do fine for events in the past. Could you kindly point me to the "new indececy laws that haven't officially taken effect yet" It's my understanding that PAW rules have been in effect for decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Go to sat radio heck leave the E! channel and get on HBO or Showtime so there is no longer a need for mozaic over the nude females and you can be potty mouth all you like on premium radio and cable/sat channels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.