How Stern is rightfully gone

[stiehl]

Originally posted by storch
Could I conceal carry my pistol if I were a citizen of New York?  Could I shoot and kill an intruder in my home without fear of prosecution?  Could I be free from filth in public airwaves or on the streets?  Wow I can't until we have freedom of choice like you do!! tell me truthfully could I ever become a deep thinker such as yourself?? say that there's hope.

I believe that you can carry in NYC(within reason, this isn't Middle of Nowhere,Nevada).

What street filth do you mean?
As for radio/TV, nobody is forcing you, you CAN change the station. If you can figure out how to.

[storch]

Originally posted by Nilsen
this has to be the worst troll ever

C'mon don't be so cynical, it looks bad on your resume

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by straffo
tomorow is another day...




I'm wise ,I know

yup, but for now this one is it

[storch]

Originally posted by stiehl
I believe that you can carry in NYC(within reason, this isn't Middle of Nowhere,Nevada).

What street filth do you mean?
As for radio/TV, nobody is forcing you, you CAN change the station. If you can figure out how to.

Ok then.  Please obtain a concealed carry permit from New York.  Post it for us when you get it.

I could change the station in my own vehicle but not in my place of employment where the lowbrows who enjoy bathroom humor had numerical sway over what was played in the shop.  are your knuckles callused?

[Habu]

Storch

Are you saying you are more educated and enlightened than the average Stern listener?

You wish.

[storch]

Originally posted by Habu
Storch

Are you saying you are more educated and enlightened than the average Stern listener?

You wish.

I'm uneducated and am in fact illiterate,  hold on while I find my flashlight.

[Red Tail 444]

Originally posted by storch
Gone from my market and many others so I'm told.  But it's ok if he is still in that NYC market, somehow they seem compatible to me.  Yes and the lines between good and bad are decidedly blurred so I easily understand your confusion.  Let me clarify it for you.  good = anything GWB says or anything from the RNC, bad = anything from the DNC and Europe.  hope that clears it up for you.

Stern is a Republican...

[storch]

Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Stern is a Republican...

Dowses redtail with holy water, throws handfuls of garlic at him and clubs him with heavy wooden crucifix.  No way!!!  I'd have to see the membership card and he would have to flawlessly perform the secret hand shake.

[Red Tail 444]

Originally posted by Nilsen
this has to be the worst troll ever

LOL...I spat the hook with storch's "good = anything GWB says or anything from the RNC, bad = anything from the DNC and Europe."



way over the top on that one...the bait's not stinky, it's putrid....

[Red Tail 444]

Originally posted by storch
Dowses redtail with holy water, throws handfuls of garlic at him and clubs him with heavy wooden crucifix.  No way!!!  I'd have to see the membership card and he would have to flawlessly perform the secret hand shake.

No thanks, Buffy. I'm not really interested in cybering with you, but thanks for offering it...


As I recall, (I might be wrong) but when he ran for governor of NY state, he ran as a Republican. I am confident that he's always been staunch supporter of GOP-centered philosophy, as well as Rudy Giuliani, and the NYPD, especially in the cases against Amadou Diallo, and the guy who was sodomozied by members of the 72nd Precinct.

Stern is hardly a liberal, but he is a supporter of first amendment rights. I support his right to make a fool of himself, actually. I get some entertainment form him.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Habu
Storch

Are you saying you are more educated and enlightened than the average Stern listener?

You wish.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Do you listen to the same Stern I do?  Just because the callers are above your intellect, doesn't make them rocket scientists.

[Kieran]

Troll aside, I'm wondering if anyone can really connect the dots between the FCC crackdown on obscenity and GWB. Seems to me this is a direct result of the "Super Bowl costume malfunction", and public outrage over the incident.

[Habu]

Originally posted by 1K0N
Obscene Broadcasts are Prohibited at all Times  


Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. To be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test:

An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;

The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and

The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.


Indecent Broadcast Restrictions  


The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as "language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities." Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory references that do not rise to the level of obscenity. Indecent programming may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

Consistent with a federal statute and federal court decisions interpreting the indecency statute, the Commission adopted a rule pursuant to which broadcasts -- both on television and radio -- that fit within the indecency definition and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are subject to indecency enforcement action.


Profane Broadcast Restrictions  


Profane material is defined as including language that denotes certain of those personally reviling epithets naturally tending to provoke violent resentment or denoting language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.

Like indecency, profane speech is prohibited on broadcast radio and television between 6am and 10pm.


First Amendment and Obscenity/Indecency  


Expressions of views that do not involve a "clear and present danger of serious substantive evil" come under the protection of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech. According to an FCC opinion on this subject, "the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views." This principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some may be highly offensive. The Courts have said that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be banned entirely. Nonetheless, the FCC has taken numerous enforcement actions against broadcast stations for violations of the restrictions on broadcast indecency.


Enforcement of Indecent Broadcast Restrictions  


Enforcement actions in this area are based on documented complaints received from the public about indecent or obscene broadcasting. The FCC’s staff reviews each complaint to determine whether it has sufficient information to suggest that there has been a violation of the obscenity or indecency laws. If it appears that a violation may have occurred, the staff will start an investigation by sending a letter of inquiry to the broadcast station.

If a complaint does not contain information sufficient to determine that a violation may have occurred, the complaint will be dismissed. In such a case, the complainant has the option of re-filing the complaint with additional information, filing a petition for reconsideration of the staff action, or filing an application for review (appeal) to the full Commission.

If the facts and information contained in the complaint suggest that a violation did not occur, then the complaint will be denied. In that situation, the complainant has the option of filing a petition for reconsideration of the staff action or an appeal to the full Commission.


Context  


In making indecency determinations, context is key! The FCC staff must analyze what was actually said during the broadcast, the meaning of what was said, and the context in which it was stated.

Stern has 8 million listeners who think that he is not indecent. The FCC has 2 or 3 people that decide if he is.

Stern is much less indecent that Spanish radio stations who have been left alone.

Your radio has a dial. You don't have to listen to him.

Stern was dropped from Clear Channel stations after he came out against GWB and Clear Channel's owners are huge GWB backers.

The FCC is a political tool that is being used to enforce an agenda that has noting to do with what the average american feels is indecent.

[Samiam]

Originally posted by Habu

Stern was dropped from Clear Channel stations after he came out against GWB and Clear Channel's owners are huge GWB backers.

The FCC is a political tool that is being used to enforce an agenda that has noting to do with what the average american feels is indecent.

How does Clear Channel dropping Stern based on philosophical differences and market conditions have anything to do with the FCC?

I'm not saying that the FCC has acted fairly or rationally with respect to the fines it has levied against Stern, but if market forces made it worthwhile, Stern wouldn't have been yanked.

Clear Channel's decission to pull Howard Stern - however misguided it may be - is simply a corporate entity excercising its will in a free market. There's nothing untoward about that and it certainly can't be called censorship.

[Scatcat]

Originally posted by Martlet
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Do you listen to the same Stern I do?  Just because the callers are above your intellect, doesn't make them rocket scientists.