Stern Threatens To Quit If Bush Signs Indecency Bill

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=20819

The Howard Stern saga continues. Although Infinity is saying they will stand by their man, Stern is threatening to quit anyway if President Bush signs new indecency legislation into law. On this morning's show, Congressman Gary Ackerman called in to discuss the bill and assure Stern that he would not sign it. Ackerman said the vote on the bill is happening today, and that he feels it will easily pass through the right wing-controlled House but that the Senate may veto it. (The bill passed in the House this afternoon, see separate story.) Stern replied by saying that if Bush signs the bill, he will resign as soon as it becomes a law. In fact, he went as far as to say that he's so tired of getting censored every morning that he may resign anyway, even if the bill isn't signed by Bush. Stern lamented that he just wants to do comedy his way, and radio has become too much of a battle.

While he could just be saying that out of anger and frustration, Stern reiterated that FCC sources have told him that Chairman Michael Powell wants him off the air, whether it be now or after the next presidential election, and he dared Powell to issue his indecency fines now instead of waiting until after the election. He also made the point that he believes his suspension by Clear Channel was directly related to him denouncing President Bush in the past few months, rather than specific incidents of indecency.

[boobooday]

1. Free Howard Stern!

hahaha

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[saigon68]

2. Chairman Michael-- "Baby Bowel" -- Powell wants him off the air

Like his father Colon Bowel, Baby does exactly what his Corporate Handlers tell him to do, like the nice little Lap Dog he is

[tobius]

3. Stern is a genius at garnering attention.

This is not Patrick Henry being silenced, or stuffing a sock in the mouth of a modern day Thomas Jefferson. It’s the same thing Howard has gotten in trouble over for decades. It’s the same thing that caused Infinity to pay over a $1 million settlement to the FCC because of Howard’s exploits ... in 1992.....<snip>

http://www.photodude.com/weblog/2004/march/08_dead_man_talking_and_talking_and_talking.shtml

So, you say, this time will be different, as it will be a huge fine sure to make his corporate bosses quake.
They rarely have before. Howard has cost his employers millions of dollars in FCC fines, over the course of the past 12 years:

1992: “Radio’s Howard Stern racked up $1.7 million in fines in 1992 from the Federal Communications Commission for talking dirty. The comment that led to the FCC’s fine was a syrupy comedy routine involving fantasies about pancake maven Aunt Jemima.”

1995: “The FCC ... decided to fine WBZU in Richmond, formally, WVGO, for something deemed offensive from a broadcast of Howard’s show.”

1997: “He has had a running battle with the Federal Communications Commission over free speech issues. He is currently fighting FCC fines totaling over $1.5 million.”

1997: “Well, this week the Stern hit the fan with a $6000 fine when Howard’s flagship station, WXRK FM, 92.3 K-Rock, was hit with a Notice of Apparent Liability (a fine) for having aired segments of the Stern show that were found to be indecent enough by the FCC to fine WBUZ in Richmond and WEZB in New Orleans both $10,000 late last year.”

1999: “He had a man play the piano with his penis, which resulted in the first of Stern’s many FCC fines for indecency. He also asked porno star Jenna Jamison’s father to identify his daughter’s vagina from a lineup of five vagina photos, which Jamison’s father did. The staff applauded, and a Stern affiliate was fined. While breaking social mores, Stern has cost his parent company, Infinity Broadcasting (a division of CBS), more than $1 million in FCC fines. Technically Infinity’s payouts are ‘donations’ to the U.S. Treasury, something to ensure it can purchase more radio stations. For Infinity Broadcasting, the fines are a small cost of doing business. Stern is its cash cow.”

Re-read those last two lines. Infinity feels Howard’s controversial acts and FCC fines ... millions of dollars ... are a cost of doing business, with their “cash cow.” They profit from it.

Obviously, Clear Channel has made a different business decision, perhaps as a result of the sting from a $755,000 fine over another of their “talents.” That would certainly make one reassess the bottom line impact of such “talent.” And any reasonable person who looks at Stern’s decade long history of millions of dollars of fines has to know more are to come.

It’s a part of his game, and always has been. Since Bush’s Daddy left office, Howard hasn’t been able to go more than a couple of years without stepping knee deep in the dog’s business, with hefty fines of up to seven figures as a result.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

4. I do not believe anyone confuses Stern with Patrick Henry

Stern has better hair, for one thing.

For another, his fines keep getting used as justification for more fines. Some of his fines are the result of politcally connected crackpots putting pressure on the FCC.

And, yes, Stern's great genius is in reading trends and riding them. What is wrong with that? His current read is that BushCo is finished, and he seems to be casting his lot with us.

I welcome his voice. It should not be silenced, no matter how offended some are by his act.

[tobius]

5. no judgement implied towards stern. I question the tizzy some have been in

since this hit the news. Kerry isn't on his side either and the 2 of them both have spectacular hair.

" 3) Howard isn’t doing anything he wasn’t before, what’s new is the government pressure on his corporate bosses.

Have you noted the total refusal to accept any responsibility for actions or content here? 1] argues this is the fault of Janet Jackson, BoobGate, and the rabid government censorship that followed, and 2] suggests it’s politically motivated, because Howard disses Bush.

You can hear the finger pointing from the horse’s mouth: “‘I don’t think we can stop it, short of me calling up President Bush and saying ‘Look man, I’m going to support you, so don’t do this.” Supporting President Bush’s Democratic opponent isn’t attractive to Stern either. ‘Unfortunately, when they asked about it, he completely skirted the issue, so it leaves me little recourse in terms of going to him.’” .....

.......It’s not about his actions, Howard’s just a total victim here. It’s Bush (and Kerry’s no better), it’s the Hollywood types, it’s the media, it’s Janet Jackson, it’s the guy who forgot to press the bleep button ... it’s society.

Not Howard.
http://www.photodude.com/weblog/2004/march/08_dead_man_talking_and_talking_and_talking.shtml

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

13. Yes, that is a good point. Everyone is at fault except him. I hear that.

But, should we allow free speech on our airwaves or not?
To date, we have not.
I don't like censorship in any form, especially in media which one has to tune to listen.
There is an off switch.

[lumpy]

17. I am no politically connected crackpot.

The great genius Stern has done more than just 'read' trends, he has set many 'trends'like appealing to the basest of human instincts. His toilet humor far exceeds those practiced by gleeful 12 year old boys who get a charge out of firing up their farts. It isn't just about sex or degrading women (women degrade themselves by pandering to the jackass), he has no problem wallowing in execrement related to the anus. This isn't about free speech, it's about whether we should tolerate the spreading of filth over public airways.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

27. I did not mean to imply you were at all. Only that, so far, the cases

brought against him have been, well, frivolous.

My biggest problem with this matter is where to draw the line? Okay, so we shut up Howard. Next week it's Jews in general. Then what? Lutherans? Indians? Democrats?

Why not try a society where we are not afraid to talk openly about things that really exist?

Let the demons out of the closet, so to speak.

A lot of problems we have currently are because we deny our innermost thoughts and dreams.

Let's truly have free speech. If people don't like Howard Stern, or Rush Limbaugh for that matter, let them listen to something else, boycott their advertisers, let the products manufacturer the reason for your boycott and let the chips fall where they may.

But lets stop pretending a voice on the radio is the root of all evil.

[lumpy]

15. Thanks tobius.

Great post. Howard Stern is no US Constitutional hero to be applauded by the Democratic party.

[scottxyz]

40. Affordability of fines isn't the issue; the Freedom Fries House of Reps is

Howard has always been as indecent on the air as he legally can - in fact, he's quite good at toeing the line on obscenity. The Republicans in the House are a bunch of chicken-shit losers trying to suck up to Bush by passing this bill with a half a million dollars in fines for whatever they define as "profanity" that week.

Howard's gift for euphemism is quick and has been honed with practice. It's actually one subtle, running part of his shtick - Howard's delicate euphemisms for one of the Seven Dirty Words You Can't Say On Radio. (If you don't always get the joke - trust me, the guys at the FCC do, and it must burn their ass to hear Howard dance around them all the time.)

For several years, Howard actually hasn't violated any of the FCC rules. He's much better at avoiding the Seven Words You Can't Say On Radio (and making sure his staff and callers avoid them) than someone like, say... right-wing radio personality Laura Ingraham...

http://66.230.230.110/mp3/li-tucker.mp3
- If you want to SAVE the audio clip and then play it, right-click and do "Save...".
- To just play the audio clip, just click on it.


That's what makes this whole thing so laughable - and so obviously political. Howard's been gung-ho for Bush all along - but then the DAY when he said something against Bush -

transcript here... wait for it to scroll down...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1199257#1199312

- is the DAY that he got pulled from the biggest, most-partisan radio chain (Clear Channel) in the country, whose CEO John Hogan is one of Bush's biggest donors.

Fines aren't really what we should be talking about now - except to point out how ridiculous it is for the House to have just passed a bill imposing a new half-a-million-dollar fine for "profanity"... whatever THAT is. (I guess it's whatever John Hogan and George Bush decide it is that week.)

I don't want to debate the niceties of yet another flag-burning bill passing the House - I feel all I need to point out is that they're nuts for passing it.

Howard getting hassled for saying something anti-Bush is no different from any other employee being hassled for having expressed his political views on the job. (In fact, Clear Channel is currently being sued by another employee for just this: She expressed "liberal" views on the job and they fired her.)

Maybe if Clear Channel and the FCC had just let Howard's comments about Bush that day pass, the whole thing would have died out. Hell hath no fury like a Howard scorned - ESPEICIALLY on his signature martyr issue: "They're out to get me because of WHAT I SAY ON THE RADIO." Howard is gonna be like a pit-bull on this issue. He's not gonna let go EVER now.

And it's not like Howard's free speech is even that most "odious" kind which wise Supreme Court justices occasionally remind us the Bill of Rights was designed to protect - he's not telling people to go out and blow up buildings or burn the flag - he's just saying "Vote against Bush".

Wow. We've gotten to the point where the "Freedom Fries" House of Representatives is trying to figure out whether to fine him a half million dollars or pull him from the airwaves.

Those tough-guy Republicans need to learn to develop a thicker skin.

All Howard's doing here is expressing a preference for Democrat versus Republican before an election and THAT'S too much for the crybabies to handle.

One loud-mouth persecuted talk-show host turns against them and they want to go and pass a LAW. Bunch of homos get married and they want to go and change the CONSTITUTION. Whiny Republicans need to get a grip.

And let's not even TALK about the obscenity, the racism, the outright calls for terrorism and genocide and treason on right-wing radio - PARTICULARLY the talk shows.

For once an actually very well-behaved shock jock DARES to criticize Bush and THAT SAME DAY, chickenshit Clear Channel pulls his show.

The issue here isn't fines. This issue is the Dixie Chicks being harrassed by Clear Channel. The issue is Howard Stern being harrassed by Clear Channel.

The issue is wusses like John Hogan and George Bush being being in bed with each other.

This issue is the minute a popular radio show host says "Vote Against Bush" one of Bush's corporate buddies and all the Republican boot-lickers in the House all come running to kiss Bush's ass.

It's a pretty pathetic spectacle if you ask me.

[truthisfreedom]

6. this is really interesting, actually. i've never paid any attention to

howard stern and now i'm fascinated by his postion and the outcome of this controversy.

[OneBlueSky]

7. I've always hated Stern, particularly his attitudes towards women, but . .

I'd get in bed with the devil himself for nine months if it will help send BushCo packing . . . love him or hate him, Stern has millions of loyal listeners who actually pay attention to what he says . . . and as long as he's saying "Bush sucks!", I'm behind him 100% . . . Go, Howard!!! . . .

[LeftCoast]

8. Instead of quitting, it'd be nice if he fought it in court

He could be the new Larry Flynt. :)

[ramapo]

11. He wants a court fight

Stern's been saying he wants a court fight.

He should stay on the air speaking out against the Bush junta until they shut him down.

[Dogmudgeon]

9. Where are they?

Where are all those Conservatives who bitterly denounced "Political Correctness" and deemed it to be the "New McCarthyism" and the "New Stalinism" even though nobody was put in prison, much less fined?

Now that Team Bush has decided to take Stern out for his political disobedience, they are silent.

Where is the outrage?

--bkl

[democracyindanger]

10. Lenny Bruce

"Take away the right to say 'fuck' and you take away the right to say 'fuck the government.'"

That pretty much sums up this FCC indecency hearing nonsense.

[devinsgram]

12. Heard him this morning and he

urged everyone listening to go to Kerry's site and donate money.

[RamboLiberal]

16. I thought this morning wouldn't it be funny

if the boob in the WH was defeated cause the wingnuts got incensed when a boob was exposed.

[lumpy]

19. Well, whoopee ding!

Isn't that precious. Howard is on our side. I'll pass that on to the hard working Kerry supporters who devote time, energy and money to bring about a Bush change. Howard Stern is no asset to the Democratic party, in fact he has the potential to be a liability by turning away voters who have no desire to be connected with filth mongers.

[Teaser]

21. Go Howard, get Busy!

I knew there was a reason I always kinda liked the guy.

[SemperEadem]

23. yeah, but I'll bet Kerry's campaing won't turn down the extra $$$$

[PATRICK]

14. NY Congressmen

Went over and above in their speeches against this travesty including attacks on the Right wing favoritism agenda and the implications and practically repeating Stern's charges word for word when mentioning his specific case.

[lumpy]

18. Looks like many people would sleep

with Howard Stern if would win votes.

[RandomKoolzip]

20. I'd fuck him if it helped defeat Bush.

And I'm a straight male!

If the first amendment does not apply to the filthiest degenerate among us, what's to stop the powers-thst-be from redefining "filth" and "degeneracy" to include liberalism, atheism, homosexuality, and protest of any sort? All these DUers attacking Stern for being "gross" really ought to read up on their ACLU brochures. THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES TO ALL OF US, whether the speaker is a Klansman, a Gay rights activist, A foul-mouthed goombah comedian, Howard Zinn, Anton LaVey, or Richard Perle.


Or would YOU like to selectively choose who doesn't get first amendment protection?

[lumpy]

22. Well then, I want my first amendment right

to stand on a street corner next to a school crossing shouting out all the degrading, filthiest, biggoted words in the English language. Further more, by the overly used premise of 'free speech' I feel that those exhibitionists who want to screw on a steet corner have the Constitutional right to do so. This and any other society should have the majority right to determine what is appropriate for public consumption, whether by Congressional regulation or majority vote or both. Yes, the Constitution applies to all of us.

[L.A.dweller]

24. Lighten up man/woman!

[lumpy]

26. Sorry, I am only using my first amendment right

to protest the pandering to Howard Stern because of his whiny newfound political stance against Bush. Howard Stern represents the underlying depravity inherently seen only in the human species. So I won't lighten up. Obviously some people would be willing to get on their knees to Falwell if it helped the Democratic campaign.

[JackDragna]

29. You mix apples and oranges well.

Standing on a street corner and yelling or having public sex doesn't exactly give others the right to go elsewhere to ignore your activities. The contents of books, television shows, the Internet and radio programs, however, are stuff of public choice. No one forces a person to listen or watch: people are free to turn off their radio and TV's. The travesty behind what is happening to Howard Stern and the whole philosophical concept of the FCC is that a governmental agency is combining with private interests to censor content on public airwaves. One does not have the right to disrupt everyday society with "speech," but the freedom of speech in broadcast and published media should be absolute.

[sweetheart]

31. not in broadcast media except political debate

Whilst i agree with your premise, i think you need to think through
what you said about freedom of speech being absolute on broadcast
media. NO.

The PUBLIC airwaves are not a private commodity, despite how crooks
have designated them. The public obligation is to make sure the
media using the public common, are constructive to the community.

I see this less as censoring individual swear words or some teenage
level potty humour, and more rather a guarantee of media plurality.
This would say that all of the citizens have EQUAL right to the
common, and thus all broadcast media should reflect the diversity
of opinion in the population. This is not majority rules, rather
that minorities have rights as well.

The public common also endorses equal time, that each political
(editorial) viewpoint get a relative air-time to their normal
sample in the population.

[Enraged_Ape]

32. The huge difference between Stern and all you suggest

Is that on the radio, you can change the fucking channel if you don't like it.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

39. No. See, I fear you don't quite get it. You can turn Stern OFF

if you choose.
Psychos on the street corners are disturbing the peace.

[SemperEadem]

25. First Amendment is for everyone, not just those we approve of

"what's to stop the powers-thst-be from redefining "filth" and "degeneracy" to include liberalism, atheism, homosexuality, and protest of any sort?"

Once you start parsing the criteria to be awarded 'rights', it won't stop. First it's speech... then it's association and then it's your religion and who you believe in or don't.

Is Stern to be denied his constitutional right because of the material he covers? The reason he hasn't been kicked off air before now is because he brings in $$$$$$$$. He's got draw, and that's all Clear Channel or Infinity care about until the branding iron is looming near their balls. If he was a money losing entity, he'd have been gone by now.

[Crachet2004]

33. I think you are correct in pointing to the larger issue:

"what's to stop the powers-thst-be from redefining "filth" and "degeneracy" to include liberalism, atheism, homosexuality, and protest of any sort?" The answer is absolutely nothing...except the Constitution.

We must not get bogged down defending the particulars of Howard Stern's content, as this is not the larger issue-and surely a losing proposition, except in the case of his political commentary.

To me, it is obvious there are forces on the Right orchestrating an assault on the Venerable Document itself. They would like to bring it in line with their own narrow interpretation of what society should be, based on a still narrower interpretation of the Bible, which they believe gives them moral justification for intervention.

Given their continuing and often fierce attacks on elements and practices of society of which they do not approve, but which are in all cases protected by the Constitution, the case can be made they are, well, unAmerican.

Extremist elements on the Right have as their ideal form of society, a sort of preinvasion-Afgani model, with themselves occupying the role of the Taliban.

They are the American Taliban, and should be branded as such-in the PR sense of the term, for our political purposes.

Their continuing attacks across the spectrum of our liberal society render them susceptible to such a charge...not just in the case of Howard Stern-though he may be the ideal person to level it.

The Right in this country delighted for decades, in labeling all left-leaning causes and beliefs as 'Communist'. It was a powerful tool. We should learn from it and not pass up an opportunity to apply a label of our own, which they have surely earned, and to which they have no defense.

We should name them Taliban.

[joeunderdog]

34. amen brother! Stern is a Greek (Jewish) tragedy in the making.

Hopefully it's a murder suicide and he slays the giants.

Listen to stern next week. he's smarter than I thought. He gets it. His statements about what this is all about are cohesive, insightful and far-reaching. He's talked about the "conspiracies" of 911, the rigged election and the religous right's attempt to take over government thru GWB so they can force their jesus on us. None of this stuff was getting any major mainstream attention before this. He is rampaging against Bush and it's phenomenal.

[JoeKSimmons]

28. If stern helps defeat bush then fine but I despise stern

Stern is a pantload of disgusting filth. However..if he helps get rid of bush then it's fine by me but I will still like to see him take his filth elsewhere.

[NightNurse]

30. "Baby Doc" Powell? OREO!

He's pathetic...a true waste of space.

[Roaming]

35. No great loss to society, IMHO

I say if he can't be entertaining without being crude, too bad for him.

[Tiberius]

36. Every time there's a Stern thread from now on

... and folks say things like "screw him, we don't need his support" all I'm going to say is:

15 million listeners, five hours a day.
15 million listeners, five hours a day.
15 million listeners, five hours a day.
15 million listeners, five hours a day.
15 million listeners, five hours a day.
15 million listeners, five hours a day.
15 million listeners, five hours a day.
15 million listeners, five hours a day.
15 million listeners, five hours a day.

If he spends five hours a day telling 15 million listeners to vote for Kerry, I'll take it. He can fart all he wants.

[rocktivity]

37. He'll do nothing of the kind

This is just more headline-grabbing drama that is no doubt raising his ratings and Infinity Broadcasting's profits. He's sitting in the catbird seat, he knows it, and he's going to use it to unseat Bush. I predicted two weeks ago that becoming the "anti-Rush" might be his next career move. Make them fire you, Howard--don't cheat yourself out of being eligible for umeployment!

:headbang:
rocknation

[iamjoy]

38. Here Is An Idea....

I don't like Stern, but I despise censorship. And if Stern will help the Democrats, I'll take his support. I don't think we can win this election by playing nice or being on some kind of moral high horse.

The FCC does regulate the airwaves, although what is "indecent" is often a matter of dispute. Selznick paid the fine when Clark Gable said "damn" because he couldn't imagine Gone With The Wind ending without that famous line. Now, movies are rated and they can say "fuck" in a film and give it a "restricted" rating but not pay a fine. If a studio doesn't want a restricted rating they must voluntarily censor their film and remove certain words, scenes, etc.

Broadcast television was subject to a single decency standard just as the films used to be. Now we have cable. Basic cable seems to have the same standards as broadcast television, but the premium channels are commercial free and can pretty much show whatever they want. Has anyone heard of XM or Satellite Radio? I haven't heard a lot about it, but it's my understanding that first you have the proper equipment, then pay a subscription service to get commercial free radio programming. Why couldn't this be like the premium cable channels, where a person pays, but gets commercial free programming and programming free from all of the FCC censorship? It's voluntary censorship, true, but then Stern could have his program and call Bush a "mother fucker" all he wanted to.

That being said, I don't like a bunch of Pharisees and their ConSWERvatives cronies sitting around trying to decide what's decent.