Progressives (Liberals)

He probably thinks like you do. I see him in a lot of people. They are hypocrites and a special kind of arrogant. Know anyone like that?

Yeah, but not pinky. He's the voice of reason and humble quietude. hahahahahahahahahahah

Looks like more gossip. Next.

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/03/opinion/editorial-observer-fighting-for-free-speech-means-fighting-for-howard-stern.html

I’m grateful you people don’t get to be the arbiters of free speech. It’s a much more dangerous world than I knew.

Excerpt:

Editorial Observer; Fighting for Free Speech Means Fighting for . . . Howard Stern
By ADAM COHENMAY 3, 2004
Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

Legal rulings about indecency have a way of quickly slipping into ridiculousness, and so it is with the Federal Communications Commission's recent decision imposing $495,000 in fines on Clear Channel for broadcasting an episode of the Howard Stern show. The F.C.C.'s opinion focuses on a program in which the self-proclaimed ''King of All Media'' interviewed the inventor of ''Sphincterine,'' which the commission huffily calls a ''purported personal hygiene product.'' A key factor in its analysis, duly noted in its ''Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,'' was that the segment contained ''repeated flatulence sound effects.''

Call it the whoopee cushion doctrine. It is hard to believe that the government now regards flatulence jokes, the lamest staple of gag gift stores, as grounds for taking away a broadcast license. But since Janet Jackson's unfortunate wardrobe malfunction, the F.C.C. has been furiously rewriting the rules. Another edict holds that broadcasters can lose their licenses even for ''isolated or fleeting'' swear words, a doctrine arising from a single gerund uttered at the 2003 Golden Globes.

Don't bother calling the commissioners philistines -- they do it themselves. In the Golden Globe ruling, they admit their definition could put D. H. Lawrence and James Joyce off limits. Not surprisingly, though, the F.C.C. has started with Mr. Stern. He has long been a favorite target; more than half of the $4.5 million in fines the F.C.C. has imposed since 1990 has been on him. The payments were once just overhead for his highly profitable show, but with the fines soaring, and broadcast licenses at far greater risk, the economics are dramatically changed. After the $495,000 fine, Clear Channel dropped Mr. Stern from its six stations. He remains on 35 other stations, but no one can say for how long.

It would be hard to quarrel with a broadcaster that dropped Mr. Stern on grounds of taste. Turn on his show or pick up his biography, ''Private Parts,'' and choose your reason, from his peculiar fascination with the sex lives of dwarves to his on-air interrogation of his mother about her sex life. But government fines, not high standards, spurred Clear Channel.

It is Mr. Stern's offensiveness that makes his cause so important. The F.C.C. is using his unpopularity as cover for a whole new approach that throws out decades of free-speech law. The talk right now is over the colorful battles between Mr. Stern and Michael Powell, the head of the F.C.C. But when the headlines fade, the censorious new regime will apply to everyone. The danger it poses to the culture is real.

I accept the validity of all your points except for the last.

While I believe there is probably an unacceptable percentage of the population which experiences "grinding poverty", a lot of people simply can't manage their money.



The problem is more anthropological than purely political. This is a typically USAmerican feature of late stage capitalism where everyone — including the government itself — is encouraged to consume continually more expensive goods with steadily rising prices, whether it's a new giant flat screen TV or the latest version of a fighter jet. So USAmerican families have woefully low amounts of savings? Looked at the federal deficit lately? We live in a system addicted to credit, cheered on by manipulative taste-makers and exploitative fearmongers. The only question is whether the global credit disaster will occur before the meltdown of the East Antarctic glaciers.

I guess it’s fair and maybe necessary to add that Stern has been touting himself very lately as a reborn man - with fresh awareness, empathy and consciousness for his fellow humans. This from the same guy who chortled gleefully with Dotard Drumpf about how hot and desirable was Dotard’s daughter. The same guy who liked to grill white women in great detail on public radio about why they would date and sleep with black men. The list of his slime trolling over the decades is endless.

A true giant of a man and what a get for Saint Bernie.

What seems to be the problem with women's titties?

Hey, what makes you think you can publicly talk about titties like this? Titties are off limit, okay? Don't talk about them darn titties, boobs, front racks, breasts, hooters, bosoms. Ever!

Nobody’s hating on titties. I happen to be quite fond of all varieties. The issue here (since you seem to be determined to appear not to know it) was that someone who made his career in lowlife interviews about body functions and sex habits was being held up as some great endorsement for a presidential candidate. You get it now?

You seem to be saying Stern’s personal morality should have precluded Bernie from standing up for freedom of speech or that Bernie should be ashamed that Stern shared the story on Colbert.

It just makes you seem like the old man waving his fist around about his lawn.

Weird morality. You miss the point. YOU seem determined not to know the issue.

You missed the point. It wasn’t an endorsement. He told the story on Colbert that he was under an FCC attack threatening to put him out of business because his unpopularity with people like you made his form of free speech an easy target.

Thankfully, people like Bernie know you have to speak up for speech you don’t necessarily like or your speech is next.

You people are so short-sighted.

I'm disagreeing with the idea that women titties are so dangerous that they shouldn't be talked about on radio waves. What are you disagreeing with?

It's not about titties, per se, it's about randy talk. It has is place, but not in public.

The internet isn't the same as freely receivable broadcast radio waves.

Actually there's no difference. Anyone with a device can read your titty talk, just like anyone with a radio can listen to Stern's titty talk...

My father-in-law and I have decided to take a break from the news, politics, political podcasts for the 28 days leading up to the first Democratic debate.

For me, that means also giving up A2K from 5/29-6/26.

Honestly, it will be tough...the political sideshow has been a daily check-in for my life the last few years....but I can't say I'm not looking forward to the break.

Only if they pay $15/mo to listen to Stern on XM radio.

His show couldn't be broadcast over the public airwaves. Our country is too conservative with sex-talk. You can show all the violence you want on TV, but don't have people cussing or talking about sex.

Yes, sex is evidently much more dangerous than any form of violence...

:-/

I take long breaks occasionally, it's worth it.

Why??? And why agreeing to it with the father-in-law?