Defense of Freedom
Published on February 26, 2004 By Larry Kuperman In Current Events
I admire fairness. The truth is, it is hard to be fair when its not in your best interests. It can be hard to say that someone you usually disagree with is right, particuarly if you don't like them.

That is why I find Rush Limbaugh's commentary on Howard Stern so pleasing. Rush doesn't like the Porn Jock (is Shock Jock the right term?) but he defended Howard Stern today. Rush's defense was motivated by Clear Channel Communications suspending Howard Stern for indecency. rush isn't a fan of Stern's (neither am I) but Rush was right on about the issue of free speech and standards. Let me quote him:

"You know, I'm in the free speech business here, my friends. I couldn't survive without it. And it is one thing for a company in business to determine whether or not they're going to be party to it. It is quite another thing for a government."

Frankly I wish that people just turned Howard Stern off. I wish that his show was cancelled due to a lack of interest. But it wasn't. Many Americans seem to like this childish, puerile, gutter humor. I listened to Howard Stern in the early 1990's and he was sometimes funny. But for a decade now all he has done is to push the envelope. And keep on pushing it. "Have I offended you yet? How about now? No, then I'll say this to offend you." So, a caller to Howard Stern (not even Stern himself) said the N-word and the show was cancelled. The network was okay with his interviewing the guy that made a porno movie with Paris Hilton, that part was "tasteful" (sarcasm), but the N-word. Nuh uh, you've gone too far.

Now Clear Channel Communications is the same company that was in danger of a $755,000 FCC fine because of what was said on a show hosted by a DJ who went under the handle of "Bubba the Love Sponge." The father of a nine-year old was shocked by the material uttered by said DJ. What the heck was a 9-year old doing listening to such a show? Did the father confuse the DJ with Sponge-Bob Square Pants? I have a nine-year old daughter and I know what she watches and listen to.

I agree that there is too much smut on TV and on the radio. But I vote by turning it off. The Janet Jackson incident was different as no one expected it during the Super Bowl. But I don't need the government or corporations fearing government fines to decide for me; I am fully capable of making those decisions myself.

Good for you, Rush. Free speach is much more important than Howard Stern can ever be.

Comments
on Feb 27, 2004
Good article, kupe.
I agree wholeheartedly. There is getting to be way to much of:

"I don't like 'insert normal parental responsibility here'. Can the Government take care of this for me?"

Whatever happened to personal responsibility and actually taking a active role in your own life and, more importantly, your kid's lives?


on Feb 27, 2004
People want to make the government take care of their personal agendas so that the "leading authority" (our government) makes their beliefs right and everyone elses' wrong.
on Feb 27, 2004
I agree, with reservations.  Radio really doesn't give you the opportunity to 'preview' material for your kids.  You get in the car, head off to school with your kids, turn on the radio, and there it is.  You may or may not have listened to that channel before, you stop to see what it is, and *bam*, your kid hears something they really shouldn't.  They can't un-hear it, and there you are left to explain it.


TV generally segregates material their according to the time of day.  I can kick on the TV in the morning and I am pretty well assured of not hearing 'anal ring toss' or about how it is supposedly sexy for someone to pee on you.  In the last week I have heard clear references to bestiality, etc. on the radio in the mornings on the way to school.

 
I don't like censorship, but I am kind of responsible for what my kid hears/sees, and if material is openly pornographic I am not doing my job if they are exposed.  We generally just have to listen to NPR in the mornings or leave it off.  Liberals or nothing... *sigh*.


I dunno why the hell they have to talk so much on the radio now anyway.  It is impossible to find music in the mornings here. .

on Feb 27, 2004
Very valid points.
on Feb 28, 2004
Reservations are fine. There have to be methods for determining what is and what is not 'right' for your children.
Information is the key.
I know not to take my child to an 'R' rated movie just as BakerStreet feels assured that daytime TV will be okay. Yes, radio is a little tougher. But not impossible. Rather than the Government censor all media, wouldn't it be better for free speech reasons to come up with a system to enable people to selectively screen their radio as well as other media such as TV, print, and movies?

Yes, some things are going to slip through. Maybe the neighbor kid has a foul mouth or someone has a 'wardrobe malfunction'. That's when it's my responsibility to explain why those behaviours are inappropriate, but nevertheless are some of what happens in the real world.

on Feb 28, 2004

People have different values, but frankly I don't want to have my seven year-olds first conversation about sex to be about why sheep are afraid of scotsmen with no pants. (something else I heard on the radio today). Kids are gonna find out about stuff, but I think there is a long way from 'finding dad's Playboys' to Howard Stern talking about how it is sexy to watch people pee...

People have always talked about stuff like this, but for some reason in the past few decades we've lost the whole concept of 'decorum'.  It is like they have no concept that it is a bit tactless to talk about dildos at the top of their lungs in the mall.

I don't think people should be forced to watch what they say, I just wish they had the sense to do it on their own.

on Feb 28, 2004
I don't know if you're quote by Rush really leads me to believe he made some profound comment about free speech. I believe I could find many quotes by Rush condemning people for their choice to exercise their free speech.

Second, what kind of arbitrary fine is that $755,000? Like a fine like that would do anything to Clear Channel communications. Hell, if what was said that resulted in such a fine generated enough interest for their radio stations they could easily claim it was an "investment."
on Oct 07, 2006
mzcjqbdh rxik tkwodhu nfvkhceys esgxjwbz bsdzuo xpoyuir
on Oct 07, 2006
Considering the fact that Howad Stern once called Rush a fat bore who should be thrown off the air, that's pretty big of Rush.

I think Howard Stern's best friend is the FCC and their decency codes. It has made a semitalently hack into a star. Howard Stern will do fine on Satalite Radio, where there are no standards of decency. However, he owes his soul to the fact that broadcast radio does. Any complaining by Stern is simply more proof that he isn't worth his ratings.