I am listening to howard stern this morning at work and thinking about what he is saying regarding the government severly regulating what is being said on the radio and in simplier terms free speech. What does everyone thing about the govt's newest way of taking away freedoms of the people of the United States. In howard stern's case, I know some things he says may offend people, I have turned him off before, but I would like to keep the right to turn him off and not have someone in washington telling me I cant listen to him. I was a 100% Bush supporter a month ago but the possible lose of our most basic rights is in all honesty scary and I dont see how I can vote for bush again. I am real interested to hear what everyone thinks.
Free Speech
- Thread starter judge09
- Start date
Well, just like this message board is regulated by it's members and Owner, the Radio stations are a little different. Sure they are owned by individuals but in the intrest of every other radio station that wants pass waves, the FCC governs the Frequency. Well, these Frequencies go out in all directions and everyone that even pops into that station while doing a scan for what they want to hear, would catch it.
If you had your child sitting in your lap and you came to Jeepz and saw some freak spouting forth with pure nastiness and meaness, wouldn't you get a little upset that your child read or saw it? Well, with the Radio there is not, "Did they read that" it's loud enough that you KNOW they heard it. I think it is a great thing that they would regulate stuff like that. BTW the FCC has been regulating that for MANY years. this is nothing new or anything that you need to point to Bush for.
If you had your child sitting in your lap and you came to Jeepz and saw some freak spouting forth with pure nastiness and meaness, wouldn't you get a little upset that your child read or saw it? Well, with the Radio there is not, "Did they read that" it's loud enough that you KNOW they heard it. I think it is a great thing that they would regulate stuff like that. BTW the FCC has been regulating that for MANY years. this is nothing new or anything that you need to point to Bush for.
Agreed, Jason. I have a 2 year old daughter and that has made me change my thinking some. There is a radio station here locally that I listen to in the morning. It's been the same "wake up crew" for about 15 years now and I've listened to them the whole time. They are very very funny, crude but funny. Lately, over the past few years, they have been getting worse and worse. They now talk in detail about bodily functions, body parts and sex acts. Granted some of it does make me laugh but they have gone too far. There is no way that that stuff should be on the radio where kids can listen to it anytime they want. Put it on satalite radio. Like cable, you have to pay for it and they have a little more freedom to play what they want.
Free Speech does not guarantee you the right to say ANYTHING you want ANYWHERE you want to.
Free Speech does not guarantee you the right to say ANYTHING you want ANYWHERE you want to.
If it was plain and simple a man voicing his opinion and discussing topics that he so chose, then so be it... freedom of speech... no objections (except a possible disagreement with what is being said). However, when it is a company or business (as in this case with a radio station), there has to be some governance on what is allowed. I have no problem with Stern or any other radio personality, simply for the fact that if I don't want to listen to them, then I change the station. The FCC is not stepping in on anyone's rights here simply because they are making an attempt to keep it a little less offensive.
Think about it... you don't go home at night, turn on the TV and start watching a show with explicit material and people doing stuff that simply shouldn't be seen on local tv.... if you so choose to watch something of that sort, you have to subscribe to another channel, or pay for the movie to see it.
In the case of Howard Stern, he is an employee for a company that does not charge any fees for people listening to their material. Therefore, there are restrictions and guidelines that must be followed. Like I said earlier, I don't necassarilly mind him being on the air simply because I can choose not to listen. But for those who may be in an area and not have the choice to change the station, there have to be limits set.
Think about it... you don't go home at night, turn on the TV and start watching a show with explicit material and people doing stuff that simply shouldn't be seen on local tv.... if you so choose to watch something of that sort, you have to subscribe to another channel, or pay for the movie to see it.
In the case of Howard Stern, he is an employee for a company that does not charge any fees for people listening to their material. Therefore, there are restrictions and guidelines that must be followed. Like I said earlier, I don't necassarilly mind him being on the air simply because I can choose not to listen. But for those who may be in an area and not have the choice to change the station, there have to be limits set.
Lefted TJ
Not to say anything about anyones views here, simply my opinion, but what ever happened to the parents taking control of what their children watch. I am almost positive (with the exception of the super bowl fiasco) most of the parents that complain are the parents that decide, hey I wanna watch my adult topic shows, but due to the fact that I am ignorant, I will allow my young child to watch it with me, then bitch and complain when it is something they should not watch!
I remember back when Bevis and Butthead were big, my little brother who was 8 or 9 at the time, was not allowed to watch that show! my parents didn't care if I did, I was like 16-17 then, but my brother wasn't old enough to really understand what he was watching, nor was it appropriate for his age. I think it all falls on the parents regulating what there children watch, not the government regulation what the broadcaster show.
Not to say anything about anyones views here, simply my opinion, but what ever happened to the parents taking control of what their children watch. I am almost positive (with the exception of the super bowl fiasco) most of the parents that complain are the parents that decide, hey I wanna watch my adult topic shows, but due to the fact that I am ignorant, I will allow my young child to watch it with me, then bitch and complain when it is something they should not watch!
I remember back when Bevis and Butthead were big, my little brother who was 8 or 9 at the time, was not allowed to watch that show! my parents didn't care if I did, I was like 16-17 then, but my brother wasn't old enough to really understand what he was watching, nor was it appropriate for his age. I think it all falls on the parents regulating what there children watch, not the government regulation what the broadcaster show.
So, in the mornings, along with Barney and Sesame Street you wouldn't have a problem if they were showing nude sex scenes on the NBC station?
You CAN control what a child sees, watches, does up to a certain age. But, when you were 12, 13, 14 years old, if your parents told you not to listen to a certain radio station, or not to watch a certain show did you do exactly what they said? If you did, you were one of the few.
south442 said:
No, the Today show is on! jk
But this does happen, It is on channels like spice and playboy, majority of people don't let there children watch these channels. again, these are not public broadcast channels, the are "PAY" channels
If you go over sea's they show nudity all the time, and it is cause of this, I think europeans have less hang-ups about nudity (I am not talking about porn, thats a different thing)
The issue is with sex, this is not something that should be shown on TV, I will not argue with that. there is a difference between descency and vulgarity.
ex) last week the NY post had a picture of a woman commiting suicide on the front page, (this was a college aged woman who jumped off a building) to me this is more offensive than seeing a woman topless on TV (or even Dennis Franz's bare buttocks.)
What I am talking about, is the government wants to remove anything that can be deame edgy on TV.
But we get to the point of too much regulation. Too much power being given to those regulatory agencies unchecked. I know the whole Janet Jackson thing is fueling all this, I would just hate to see it get out of control. I am just a believer that the parents should be responsible for teaching their kids appropriate values not the govt. There was sex, drugs, alcohol, and unlawful dealings going on around me while growing up but I knew better because thats what my parents taught me.
I think its funny that people are concerned with what Stern has to say, when you can flip through TV channels on any given night and see a number of scantily clad women selling phone sex. I would rather my kids hear a quick inappropriate comment than see an ad for Intercative Male (a gay phone line with a bunch of naked men on it). Nothing against the gay scene, but seeing, in my opinion, is worse than hearing, and that goes for Stern's tv show too. Your kids are going to hear worse stuff at school, hell they will probably see that infamous dirty magazine at some point, its how we educate them to deal with it that counts. Just my .02
mingez
New member
It is about choice, it is about a line, and it is about free speech, and my freedom to hear it. I agree with laneiac that education has a huge role in this.
I don't think I should have to pay to hear Howard Stern, that is just simply outrageous. There is a line that can be crossed, true. The problem is, that line is determined by the people, and I don't think it has been crossed by Stern. There is an obvious demand for that type of programming, thus, it exists. If you want him to go away, don't listen, his ratings will drop, and he'll be forced to go away. Pick your poison, more government intervention, or capitalism. I say the latter.
The problems with "Social" Republicans is that they preach for "Freedom" and "Liberty" and the need to defend it at ALL costs, but they want to determine what your freedoms should be. Ludicrious policies such as this are going to get the Bush admin. run out of the White House, and I'll be laughing when it does.
Just remember YOUR line isn't necessarily MY line to be crossed. If the government intervenes and forces him off the air, my right has been taken away to listen to him because I can't simply turn him back on. If he is left on air, one still has the right to turn him off. I think the bigger crime would be to employ censorship tactics.
Censorship is for Facists and Dictatorships, leave that for those types of governments.
God bless the USA.
BTW- I hate Stern, and NEVER listen to him.
I don't think I should have to pay to hear Howard Stern, that is just simply outrageous. There is a line that can be crossed, true. The problem is, that line is determined by the people, and I don't think it has been crossed by Stern. There is an obvious demand for that type of programming, thus, it exists. If you want him to go away, don't listen, his ratings will drop, and he'll be forced to go away. Pick your poison, more government intervention, or capitalism. I say the latter.
The problems with "Social" Republicans is that they preach for "Freedom" and "Liberty" and the need to defend it at ALL costs, but they want to determine what your freedoms should be. Ludicrious policies such as this are going to get the Bush admin. run out of the White House, and I'll be laughing when it does.
Just remember YOUR line isn't necessarily MY line to be crossed. If the government intervenes and forces him off the air, my right has been taken away to listen to him because I can't simply turn him back on. If he is left on air, one still has the right to turn him off. I think the bigger crime would be to employ censorship tactics.
Censorship is for Facists and Dictatorships, leave that for those types of governments.
God bless the USA.
BTW- I hate Stern, and NEVER listen to him.
graewulf
New member
hardtop hoist
howard stern got what was coming to him.. the fcc sets guidelines, he broke them constantly, and knew he was doing it too... They wouldn't have said anything about it if he stayed within the guidelines.... Sometimes he goes too far, and that is what needs changed.. He likes to break the rules, just to see how far he could go before they did exactly what they did.. most of the time he's just an obnoxious jerk, but those are his good days (ok, i dont like him, thats why i dont listen to him)
howard stern got what was coming to him.. the fcc sets guidelines, he broke them constantly, and knew he was doing it too... They wouldn't have said anything about it if he stayed within the guidelines.... Sometimes he goes too far, and that is what needs changed.. He likes to break the rules, just to see how far he could go before they did exactly what they did.. most of the time he's just an obnoxious jerk, but those are his good days (ok, i dont like him, thats why i dont listen to him)
mingez said:
Mingez summed up more elequantly what I was trying to say originally. Stern may be putting out a product that some people think is inappropriate but the same thing can be said in a variety of art forms. Maybe swimmers should be censored durning the Olympics because the tight suits may be inappropriate for young children. Or bathing suits on the beaches. Let society decide.
Freedom of speach only covers a single person's ability to say what he feels. However, when that one person is broadcast over the country it no longer becomes one man saying something it become one man on a soapbox trying to preach to his minions.
Freedom of Speach SURE but don't send him across 3 of my 4 radio stations. That isn't Freedom, that is saturation. Cut the big nosed freak off.
Freedom of Speach SURE but don't send him across 3 of my 4 radio stations. That isn't Freedom, that is saturation. Cut the big nosed freak off.
LadyJeepFreak
New member
:shock: LOL ya'll bored today? What a topic, interesting posts!
While were on the subject of control. How do you feel about smoking bans?
I don't understand how in a "Free" country, governments are allowed to now ban the use of a substance you can buy at every corner store, like they have smoking.
I fully understand the second hand smoke issue and all sides of the topic. I just don't get how its okay anyway you look at it. To me its one side verses the other and neither is right or wrong, just different. Were forced into a mold though by those who have the say so. If its so bad and you want to control it that much, make it illegeal!
As far as Stern, and other entertainment type things I think there should be a certain level of guidelines set by the FCC or whoever but I also agree with those that say parental control needs to be put in use. Everyone wants to turn to someone else for an answer or to even just to blame, these days.
I will say I am very liberal though and don't agree with alot of things that get limits set on anything or anyone. That's just my personality. Don't get me started! lol
::Jeeping around the bend::
Lady
While were on the subject of control. How do you feel about smoking bans?
I don't understand how in a "Free" country, governments are allowed to now ban the use of a substance you can buy at every corner store, like they have smoking.
I fully understand the second hand smoke issue and all sides of the topic. I just don't get how its okay anyway you look at it. To me its one side verses the other and neither is right or wrong, just different. Were forced into a mold though by those who have the say so. If its so bad and you want to control it that much, make it illegeal!
As far as Stern, and other entertainment type things I think there should be a certain level of guidelines set by the FCC or whoever but I also agree with those that say parental control needs to be put in use. Everyone wants to turn to someone else for an answer or to even just to blame, these days.
I will say I am very liberal though and don't agree with alot of things that get limits set on anything or anyone. That's just my personality. Don't get me started! lol
::Jeeping around the bend::
Lady
Snitty
New member
and
Anyone who says that he is crossing lines and breaking rules obviously does not listen to him... Ok, maybe back in his early days he crossed a few lines and broke some rules... That is exactly how he got to the top... but lately... in the past few years... What rules has he broken on the radio? What lines has he crossed? Why is HE getting punished for things that are forcefed to society every day? I listen to Stern every morning.. and all through the day, there are beer commercials, condom commercials, graphic displays in EVERY form of media... radio, television, billboards, magazines... EVERYTHING.. stuff that cannot be ignored... Some may feel it to be "indecent" for their child to see someone smoking, and don't want them to thing that it is ok? Should people be forced to smoke in private? NO (more on the smoking deal in a bit)...
About the "he says stuff that would be sensored here" deal... The things discussed here and the things he discusses are of completely different topics... he is paid by the station, and advertisers to talk... just talk... different topics, news, guests... all sorts of ranges of material... The rare occasion where we talk about all sorts of topics here, I won't refrain from putting my opinion on the table... If someone is offended by the way another person thinks.... that is their weakness... If someone says something about me, great, I now know what they think... It doesn't bother me, I realize that it is simply what they think... Stern really DOESNT say offensive things on radio... Yeah, maybe he'll be blunt here and there, and may be a "jerk" at times... but I totally respect the way he is.. he is fake for NOBODY... He will not DO or SAY anything offensive about anyone... BUT... what does give some people the wrong idea is... he DOES exploit the things that people create for themselves... He has a great ability to show ignorance in other people, AFTER they've already surfaced it... I think he is great...
Stern is a VERY smart, influential man... and that is not MY opinion.. that is THE opinion...
Bottom line here is that people have a very wrong idea of him... people think he is the immoral, indecent icon of media and should be stopped... Take some time to listen to him... and instead of persecuting him for his honesty and lack of fear of his own opinions... give those qualities a try.. you'll learn and see that living outside of the "beautiful life" bubble will expand you much more than being trapped inside. The radio and other free forms of media are not the only place that someone can "accidentally see/hear" something that may be offensive. If someone wants their child to never ever ever hear about sex, drugs, human bodies, and all the other things that REALLY DO go on in the world, and DO HAVE TO be learned in order to deal with them.... then the ONLY way to have it that way is to lock their children in a box and stuff their ears shut. I realize there is a point where it can be acceptable for a child to start learning of it all... but again... to keep all people away from access to the things that really are factors in the real world, and painting a fantasy "perfect life" is simply dumb... dumb
I know I left a lot out... just went throught it quickly... i'm sure it will circle back around so i can touch on it more....
Smoking....
I'm glad we got our smoking ban here in NY... but only for personal preference because i hate being around smoke... But... Do I agree that ALL public places which pay employees should be banned from smoking? No... that is retarded. I do enjoy being able to go to a bar without having to use nuclear science to get the ashtray smell out of my clothes, and the fresher atmosphere is much more pleasant... but i think it is stupid that the gov't is regulating it...
I don't feel so bad about the smokers, they are not being limited from smoking.. they can do it all they want.. just not INSIDE... for years and years, If us nonsmokers wanted to go to a public place, we had to be inconvenienced by our natural comforts being taken away because smokers (not all, just ignorant ones.. and there are ignorant nonsmokers too) felt they had a "right" to inconvenience us so they could enjoy an unnecessary luxury. Who I feel bad for are the owners of the businuses... If they want to allow people to smoke in their establishments, then what does it hurt? nothing.. not a tiny thing...
I hear all the time from smokers: "It is unconstitutional, they are taking our rights away".... pshhhh.... I don't remember seeing "the right to smoke wherever you want" in the consitution. They are not taking away the permission to smoke at all... anyone can smoke whenever they want, as much as they want.... just not WHERE they want... I'm allowed to carry a gun whenever I want, for as long as I want, and for any reason I want... BUT... I am NOT allowed to do it WHEREVER i want... I know there are limits... that is the law.. simple... I don't complain because of it... it is not unconstitutional that I can't carry a gun in certain places... In no way is it violating "the freedom of choice".. I hear a lot "If I want to have a smoke, then i'm gonna have a smoke, nobody is gonna stop me"... I don't remember a big outrage when smoking was banned in hospitals, there was no big outrage when smoking was banned in schools, there was no big outrage when there were smoking sections put into places... those all put limitations on where people can/can't smoke... it wasn't "unconstitutional" then... if the current situation was violating the "freedom of choice" then all the previous actions were too... and ANY gov't action that limits what we are allowed to do and not allowed to do is violating the freedom of choice... but IT IS NOT... if you CHOOSE to smoke, or if you choose to do anything at that matter... there WILL be limitations on it... I like to drive fast, shoot guns, and all sorts of things that i'm not allowed to do in town... if i want to do those thigns... there ARE places to do them... and I take that without complaining.. at least i'm still allowed... they are all luxuries... nobody has a RIGHT to luxuries, reguardless of constitution or not... nobody signed a contract at birth saying that they will have the luxuries they think they might feel like at any moment... if you DO have them... consider it a good thing...
back to the smoking ban... smoking is a luxury (for those of you who consider it that)... there is nothing that says you can do it anywhere you want... never has there been... you are not stopped from doing it... nonsmokers deserve an "inconvenience free" environment billions of times more than smokers deserve an unnecessary luxury...
Again.. i'm not agains poeple smoking... and i don't think that it should be a government choice to decide where people can and can't smoke... but... i do think that comfort has priority over luxury
Snitty
New member
oh yeah... some may not like some of the things i said... i did speak my side of things... if anyone is offended... take it as it was meant, which is simply my views based on the facts i know... but if someone IS offended.. i am sorry... if someone feels they must defend their own side.. please do.. i love hearing from people who see things from a different angle
