Ha. Down to the fucking FCC; down the puppet Powell--chaiirman of the FCC; down to the Bush administration! Am I another Howard Stern nut out to campaign against the government's hounding of radio personalities in the wake of Janet Jackson fake tits being exposed? No. Funny though is, there is a scary thing going on in radio: Radio personalities are being fined six figure amounts for violations that amount to the mere utterance of a word like "Fuck". Well, Fuck you. Damn I love the net.

Howard Stern has been singled out by the FCC, now in a supposed moral quest to stamp out all the those who would decay the minds of the fucking children, oh, the poor bloody children. A handful of moronic ultra conservative fucks have started a rolling ball that figures to end with pretty much the legalization of censorship on all media that is "public"; now you go ahead and define that term. So where is the outrage? What exactly were CBS, NFL, etc fearing in the wake of the charade that was the superbowl? What were the catastrophic punishments awaiting them from the general public who would still watch CSI the next week, and the super bowl, the next year? It is madness. Where are the free speech advocates voicing their overwhelming support for Stern in this manhunt?

Here is a transcript from the Howard show that essentially brings to view the idiocity in the censoring of supposedly obscene language:
Enjoy:

"The Howard Stern Show Transcript Thursday, July 26, 2001
HS: Howard Stern
RQ: Robin Quivers
MV: Male Cast Member

HS: I said to Mark Wahlberg yesterday, had he ever gotten a blumpkin from a girl and everyone around here is acting like they don't know what it is.
RQ: You're the only nutcase who does.
MV: I said "blumpkin" on the "Norm Show" and the network censor, we told him we just made the word up. He goes, "that's definitely not a real word right?" We go, no,no,no. And I said it, I yelled out at a hooker in a cab.
HS: What do you say to her, "how about a blumpkin?"
MV: I go "honey, how much for a blumpkin?"
HS: Right.
MV: And uh the network censor never heard of it. And he goes if you just made it up it's fine but if it's a real thing we can't have it. So it's aired, it's been on ABC, it's like the dirtiest thing ever on television.
HS: Yeah, but nobody knows what it is. A blumpkin… I can explain it cleanly.
RQ: There's nothing clean about a blumpkin.
HS: Well, a blumpkin is receiving oral sex while you're sitting on a toilet bowl if you are a man. You're sitting on a toilet bowl and uh, while you're evacuating you receive your oral.
RQ: Ick.
HS: And uh, then, what did I say yesterday too you didn't understand? Balloon knot?
RQ: Yes, I don't know what that is. Somebody said to me "is that the funniest thing ever?" and I was like "what is that?"
HS: A balloon knot…
RQ: I didn't want to show my ignorance, I laughed too.
HS: A balloon knot… I'm gonna post these on a web site…
RQ: Yeah, we need a dictionary for this show.
HS: A balloon knot is when you bend over and I can see up right up your old…
RQ: Up the wazoo?
HS: Up the wazoo and uh, you know that's a balloon knot that you see. That's called a "balloon knot."
RQ: Really, I did not know that.
HS: Think about it, it looks like a balloon knot.
RQ: I don't know. Oh… you know what…
HS: Tie up a balloon.
RQ: I'm just thinking of a balloon knot…
MV: It all makes sense, Robin, come on. HS: And uh, what else did I say? "Nasty Sanchez," you didn't know what that was.
RQ: Oh, I don't even want to know half the time what these things are…
HS: That I'd have to post on the internet.
RQ: 'Cause there've been a number of terms used lately. Would you do… 'cause KC's always blurtin' them out.
HS: "Strawberry shortcake"
RQ: "Strawberry shortcake" I've never heard of. "Dirty Sanchez"
HS: "Nasty Sanchez."
RQ: What is the others KC?
MV: I heard a new one the other day. It was the "David Copperfield."
HS: That's right.
MV: Okay, do you want to explain it, since I... When you're goin' like a dog…
HS: Right.
MV: …and you're about to finish and instead you don't finish, you spit on her and then you turn around and when she turns her face around then you go… So it's kind of like an illusion…
HS: Right.
MV: to David Copperfield.
RQ: Sleight of hand.
HS: Misdirection.
MV: Classic misdirection.
HS: You trick her. There's a million of them, but uh, I'll post them on the web.
RQ: Yes, because people need to know. These aren't in the regular dictionary.

AMEN ! Howard rocks.

Where are the free speech advocates voicing their overwhelming support for Stern in this manhunt? Drinking heavily, as they do before taking up a cause on behalf of the KKK or NAMBLA.

It's not a question of his rights, but rather the thought of having to defend self-satisfied, smarmy, intentionally-useless dreck.

Howard Stern's popularity, as well as that transcript above, are excellent examples of American priorities gone awry.

Stern has set precedents for free speech in the past. He's capable of taking care of himself now and in the future. The more free speech advocates he has to account for ... well, they'll just be in his way. Wheras the free speech advocates are accustomed to more traditional tactics, Stern seeks to piss in the mouths of the FCC. Free speech advocates are of no use to him whatsoever.

It's not a question of his rights, but rather the thought of having to defend self-satisfied, smarmy, intentionally-useless dreck.
And yet, they are like dogs in heat when the chance appears to defend the likes of the KKK. I think it very self defeating.

Howard Stern's popularity, as well as that transcript above, are excellent examples of American priorities gone awry.
I'm not so sure. Howard Stern serves to satisfy a certain niche of society whose fantasies he plays out every day. I think in this soupbowl we are all stuck in, it is very refereshing that a self professed talentless, ugly buffoon, with a small dick still manages to get his pick of a myriad of beautiful girls. The insecure men he allows to live vicariously through him, and the politically incorrect stances he has made are actually fundamental conerstones of any democracy that attempts to satisfy all. Besides what other modern personlaity has done so much to ensure the freedom of speech?

Stern has set precedents for free speech in the past. He's capable of taking care of himself now and in the future. The more free speech advocates he has to account for ... well, they'll just be in his way. Wheras the free speech advocates are accustomed to more traditional tactics, Stern seeks to piss in the mouths of the FCC. Free speech advocates are of no use to him whatsoever.
I think this is wholly irrelevant. That he can take care of himself is also suspect, given the current climate and his decision to go to satelitte radio. When the New York Times attempted to defend his right to free speech, and thus, the ability to speak his mind, the preface--hell the majority of the editorial was merely a distancing from Stern-- his supposed profanity, abuse and general uselessness to the world--with an ending that asserted that he--Stern, nevertheless had the right to freedom of speech. It is cowardice on the part of the free speech advocates that allow that in a situation which begs for them, a situation that could start a chain of events we could all regret, they stay away because they do not want to associate themselves with Stern; I suppose it much easier to draw the contrast between an entity like the KKK and Stern. Besides, one cannot assert that Stern's political satires serve no purpose to a group otherwise generally detached from the political wranglings of this country. I bet Howard Stern will single-handedly ensure that millions vote in this election against Bush. That in itself is an accomplishment.

I bet Howard Stern will single-handedly ensure that millions vote in this election against Bush. That in itself is an accomplishment. Bush will join the ranks of the unemployed come January, and Stern will most likely continue making numbers with six zeroes at the end in order to play out people's sexual fantasies on the radio each day.

And yet we pretend Howard Stern needs a bunch of career-minded attorneys from one or another PAC running around getting in his way?

Something about priorities, as I noted, goes here:it is very refereshing that a self professed talentless, ugly buffoon, with a small dick still manages to get his pick of a myriad of beautiful girls.Such as this.

Ironically, in order to get to a Howard Stern story at Salon, I need to go through an ACLU advert.

Besides, what, with the war on terror, Howard Stern's little unit is about the last thing anyone needs to be worrying about. Something about priorities.

If I thought Stern could seriously be taken down by the Shrub, I might feel differently.

At any rate, what do you want? Forty lawsuits filed on his behalf taking control of the situation out of his hands?

Perhaps simply more articles like this (http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/03/far04009.html)?

Look, it's one thing to claim free speech. It's another thing to try to push the edge. When you do the latter, every day, you occasionally go too far.

Frankly, I think Stern's fans who are upset are a bunch of immature freaks whom we owe our great thanks; at a time when our government is consolidating communicative and media power, prosecuting culture wars, and shredding the constitution in the name of security, the highest priority for so many geek-dittoheads is their morning fix of blumpkins and strawberry shortcake. Y'all are true American patriots.

When you say, "I'm going to see how many times I can break the law," you're occasionally going to get rapped on the knuckles. Howard will survive this period, and frankly, he deserves to have to get off his sorry butt and fight for his depravity once in a while.

Howard Stern will help secure the election against Bush, but as A. Whitney Brown once pointed out, we cannot forget about our illiterate or ultimately stupid American neighbors because sooner or later they will appear next to you on a barstool, sucking down the beer nuts and explaining how the Rosetta Stone is really a hidden message from the aliens. And some of them will even vote. And now, thanks to the FCC pissing them off by moving against Howard Stern shortly after he decides he doesn't like the Commander-in-Chief's way of doing business, they will.

I'm telling you, man ... it's a matter of priorities. Stern plays the whipping boy? Hell, he gets paid enough. And it's his own decision. Yammering pointlessly about unsanitary sexual practices is an important priority to him. When he looks at communicative media, it's the best he can figure out to offer his fellow human beings.

No, I don't want him silenced by any government authority, but I wouldn't mind the random act of nature, like a stroke or meteorite. Howard Stern is one we owe much thanks for his sterling efforts to lower the quality of life in America in order to test the utility of the First Amendment.

I'm actually glad to see him getting the wrath from the Bush administration; up until that point I had considered him part of the conservative movement that hopes to secure political power by dumbing down the United States of America. Now I realize he's just an asshole, and that's all there is to it.

Oh yes ... and you can have those kinds of girls, too, small unit notwithstanding. It's just that getting married is about an equal cost option, and prostitution is definitely cheaper and--I'm told--more spiritually satisfying. Anyone can have those kinds of girls; it just costs a fortune. Oh, and it's a headache, too. After a while, you start looking to hire a woman just to talk to--anything to get around thinking people for a few.

Issues of race relations affect people's lives. Rushing into those battles is generally a disgraceful affair, but what can anyone be expected to do on behalf of Howard Stern's morning circle-jerk?

What would you like to see? Should we all fill the streets, driving our fists into the air?

"Seig Heil!"
- Blumpkins!
"Seig Heil!"
- Shortcake!
"Seig Heil!"
- Sanchez!
"Seig Heil!"
- Small dicks!

or

"We're here! We're insecure! And we need our morning porn!"

or

"One, two, three, what are we fighting for?"
- Blumpkins!

It would be amusing, but frankly, if the people choose to put this fight first, no further explanations will be needed for 9/11.

But yes, you're right. We all owe Howard Stern a great debt for his lowering of American expectations and reducing of American dreams. He truly is a service to our society.

Bush will join the ranks of the unemployed come January, and Stern will most likely continue making numbers with six zeroes at the end in order to play out people's sexual fantasies on the radio each day.

And yet we pretend Howard Stern needs a bunch of career-minded attorneys from one or another PAC running around getting in his way?
It is an assumption to assert that Bush will be out of office come next January. Secondly, what does it matter that Howard Stern is rich? Would it make any more difference if he was a poor fuck in Savannah whose radio show was being threatened by some ridiculous censorship of his content? Well guess what, that radio personality exists. The issue is not Howard Stern; the issue is censorship. Why is the ideal of promoting free speech any different when it involves the right of skinheads to parade their hateful messages than when it applies to society's other members who cannot strike as hard a line of separation between themselves and others?

Something about priorities, as I noted, goes here:Such as this.

Ironically, in order to get to a Howard Stern story at Salon, I need to go through an ACLU advert.
This is entirely the choice of Salon and has nothing whatsoever to do with Stern. Would it make it any different were the article to be at CNN.com? It is capitalism, not a loss of priorities.

Besides, what, with the war on terror, Howard Stern's little unit is about the last thing anyone needs to be worrying about. Something about priorities.
This is nonsense. What of the war? The war in Iraq is happening; that changes not the fact that a man's right to free speech is being threatened simply because Janet Jackson showed a nipple, the Christians got pissed and flooded the FCC with complaints, the pathetic media jumped on the bandwagon, and now the FCC feels a need to censor material that was previously uncensored. How the hell is that a lack of priorities to advocate free speech at anytime? Should we also say fuck to the right of due process? Oh, yea, because of the "war on terror" we already did (Patriot Act). That is the true lack of priorities: the fundamentals on which the nation was built must always be protected-- always!

If I thought Stern could seriously be taken down by the Shrub, I might feel differently.
It transcends Stern. He is merely the scapegoat because he is the most visible radio personality. Also, how can you assert that you do not think he will be "taken down" when the fact remains that the Clear station group (the most powerful of the radio entities) has dropped him from their stations? Or that his entire content is so watched, he may or most likely will go to Satellite radio?

Look, it's one thing to claim free speech. It's another thing to try to push the edge. When you do the latter, every day, you occasionally go too far.
Push the edge by talking to porn stars about sex? Give me a bloody break.

Frankly, I think Stern's fans who are upset are a bunch of immature freaks whom we owe our great thanks; at a time when our government is consolidating communicative and media power, prosecuting culture wars, and shredding the constitution in the name of security, the highest priority for so many geek-dittoheads is their morning fix of blumpkins and strawberry shortcake. Y'all are true American patriots.
In a time when the government is consolidating media and communicative power, abusing and shredding the constitution, all in the name of a war on terror, it is sad to hear hypocrites yap about the very same thing that would have ensured that their government did not get it so easy. Whhen what once was deemed fine for radio is now being castigated, you all hide under the same bloody cloak of a war on terrorism and priorities gone AWOL. Tell me, what the hell are you doing for your damn country right now you useless hypocrite? And do not label as a Howard Stern "fan" simply because you need an abstract to attack. It is more than Stern for the bloody umpteenth time. All radio shows are feeling the blunt of a the FCC.

When you say, "I'm going to see how many times I can break the law," you're occasionally going to get rapped on the knuckles. Howard will survive this period, and frankly, he deserves to have to get off his sorry butt and fight for his depravity once in a while.
And what happens when the supposed laws he's breaking are codified? His strategies for protecting himself are quite simply unrealistic at this stage. A freaking 500,000-dollar fine allows that disobedience is not an option.

Howard Stern will help secure the election against Bush, but as A. Whitney Brown once pointed out, we cannot forget about our illiterate or ultimately stupid American neighbors because sooner or later they will appear next to you on a barstool, sucking down the beer nuts and explaining how the Rosetta Stone is really a hidden message from the aliens. And some of them will even vote. And now, thanks to the FCC pissing them off by moving against Howard Stern shortly after he decides he doesn't like the Commander-in-Chief's way of doing business, they will.
And let's not forget that you have not seen the bloody Rosetta Stone, nor have you deciphered the writings on it. Someone else did. And unless you can prove that outside mere readings on the Rosetta Stone, you have actually gotten closer to the truth that your "illiterate" or "stupid" neighbour, I suggest you shut up, and appreciate that he helped in your cause.

I'm telling you, man ... it's a matter of priorities. Stern plays the whipping boy? Hell, he gets paid enough. And it's his own decision. Yammering pointlessly about unsanitary sexual practices is an important priority to him. When he looks at communicative media, it's the best he can figure out to offer his fellow human beings.
It is not an issue of priorities. It is an issue of censoring what ought to be a medium of freedom, and has been a medium of freedom. It makes no sense that you keep battering Stern, as if he someone how warrants that abuse simply because of what he does. Why don't the fucking KKK get the same response from free speech advocates? What he chooses to due on radio is irrelevant. Fart jokes and general sexual innuendos never killed anyone.

No, I don't want him silenced by any government authority, but I wouldn't mind the random act of nature, like a stroke or meteorite. Howard Stern is one we owe much thanks for his sterling efforts to lower the quality of life in America in order to test the utility of the First Amendment.
Look at this, what a bunch of nonsense. He has lowered the quality of life, how? It is significant that he tests the "utility" of the first amendment, or perhaps you haven't been anyplace where the ability to speak your mind is heavily regulated and therefore have no appreciation for those whose test the limits of the right this country provides.

I'm actually glad to see him getting the wrath from the Bush administration; up until that point I had considered him part of the conservative movement that hopes to secure political power by dumbing down the United States of America. Now I realize he's just an asshole, and that's all there is to it.
So him being an asshole somehow vindicates your hatred against him?

Oh yes ... and you can have those kinds of girls, too, small unit notwithstanding. It's just that getting married is about an equal cost option, and prostitution is definitely cheaper and--I'm told--more spiritually satisfying. Anyone can have those kinds of girls; it just costs a fortune. Oh, and it's a headache, too. After a while, you start looking to hire a woman just to talk to--anything to get around thinking people for a few.
I get my share of girls, but nowhere near what he gets, but probably more than you get, and I'm quite satisfied with my unit, thank you very much. :D . I know being rich makes your range of potential mates exponential grow, but this is irrelevant. What is relevant is that a large portion of his audience quite simple cannot get what he gets, nor can they say what he says. He provides the outlet for their fantasies. What significance is there in the fact that money would solve a lot of their wishes? They are not rich.


Issues of race relations affect people's lives. Rushing into those battles is generally a disgraceful affair, but what can anyone be expected to do on behalf of Howard Stern's morning circle-jerk?

What would you like to see? Should we all fill the streets, driving our fists into the air?

"Seig Heil!"
- Blumpkins!
"Seig Heil!"
- Shortcake!
"Seig Heil!"
- Sanchez!
"Seig Heil!"
- Small dicks!

or

"We're here! We're insecure! And we need our morning porn!"

or

"One, two, three, what are we fighting for?"
- Blumpkins!

It would be amusing, but frankly, if the people choose to put this fight first, no further explanations will be needed for 9/11.

This is quite simply moronic. What I want is for people to take their bloody noses out of their arses and realize that from Dover to Saremento, the FCC is riding the wave of right-wing christian nonsense to censor that which was previously allowable. In light of your unneeded attempt to belittle Stern fans, how's this:

“We are here! We are insecure! We have the right to our morning porn.”
Is that intelligent enough for you?

“I got a Blumpkin from Pamela; you gave a Blumpking to Bush.”
Is that stupid enough for you/?

But I suppose it would be better if we all bitched about one thing or the other-- you about the war on terror, and I about freedom of speech, and then both got high and fell on our lazy asses, right? Pathetic. I"ll take it one step further: I"ll go fuck.

But yes, you're right. We all owe Howard Stern a great debt for his lowering of American expectations and reducing of American dreams. He truly is a service to our society.
You outdo yourself, your highness. Perhaps you'd like to establish how he had lowered American expectation and reduced the America dream.

Frankly, I think Stern's fans who are upset are a bunch of immature freaks whom we owe our great thanks; at a time when our government is consolidating communicative and media power, prosecuting culture wars, and shredding the constitution in the name of security, the highest priority for so many geek-dittoheads is their morning fix of blumpkins and strawberry shortcake. Y'all are true American patriots.
You don't get it. These political issues are exactly the things Stern rants against, but he can't do it all the time, or he becomes another boring Rush Limbaugh. Stern tells it like it is, sex is central to the human experience, yet our god-bothering puritanical morality police are so neurotic about sex, that it can't ever be mentioned. Sexual freedom one of the major things that separates the U.S. from the Taliban. It is no coincidence that the FCC cracks down on Stern after he comes out against Bush.
When you say, "I'm going to see how many times I can break the law," you're occasionally going to get rapped on the knuckles.
That is the essence of the issue, the law does not define indecency, except for the dirty words that Howard studiously avoids. This leaves the issue open to the whim of anyone's interpretation and tyranny. The law should not be subjective in this way. The law should be precise.

I always get a kick out of those whom vicariously preserve 'their' right to free speach by way of medium personalities, all the while thinking their constitutional rights are being protected/defended in the process. YEAH RIGHT!

I read 'codefining' of laws in someones post prior - well, codefining of laws occur when far reaching, broad in scope, laws are driven to their limits, limits intended to ensure anothers rights are not infringed (keep in mind that with every right comes an obligation). To me people like Howard Stern, especially his followers, defend/stand for the right to free speach with a blind eye toward their obligations.

For this reason the government moves to stifle - not censor - people like Howard Stern. In the process individual rights may be 'codefined'.

The question should really be: How does it feel to have your 'rights' codefined by a guy with a small dick talking about bangin' a whore? :confused:

Free speech? correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt the idea of USA free speech based upon "no prior restraint". ie that you can say what you like, but afterwards you can get arrested for it?
(and thus, most people dont realise how unfree they are.)

*I reiterate*
With every right comes an obligation.

It is an assumption to assert that Bush will be out of office come next January. True. I'll reassess if I'm wrong.Secondly, what does it matter that Howard Stern is rich? On the one hand, it doesn't.

To the other, though, Stern gets paid a ridiculous amount of money specifically to go out and trample decency into the ground. Part of what he does for money is f@ck with the FCC. Every once in a while, they're going to slap back. This is all part of what he does, part of what he asks for, part of what he deserves.

In the long run, he can't lose--it is a speech issue. If he loses, then I'll worry about it.

I owe a great deal to pornographers. Larry Flynt gave his legs for my right to speak. If Howard has to put up with some paperwork, well ... it's what he asked for.This is entirely the choice of Salon and has nothing whatsoever to do with Stern. Would it make it any different were the article to be at CNN.com? It is capitalism, not a loss of priorities. No. Rather, I thought you might appreciate the irony. I was wrong.This is nonsense. What of the war? The war in Iraq is happening; that changes not the fact that a man's right to free speech is being threatened simply because Janet Jackson showed a nipple, the Christians got pissed and flooded the FCC with complaints, the pathetic media jumped on the bandwagon, and now the FCC feels a need to censor material that was previously uncensored. How the hell is that a lack of priorities to advocate free speech at anytime? Should we also say fuck to the right of due process? Oh, yea, because of the "war on terror" we already did (Patriot Act). That is the true lack of priorities: the fundamentals on which the nation was built must always be protected-- always!I'm not going to worry about a provocateur having to jump through some hoops to make his point when there are far more legitimate speech issues to worry about.

There's a lot going on. Howard Stern, his small dick, and strawberry shortcake can take a number and wait the hell in line.It transcends Stern. He is merely the scapegoat because he is the most visible radio personality. While it does transcend Stern, I find it absolutely laughable that he is somehow victimized as a scapegoat. If you play chicken on the freeway, you're going to get nailed in the ass once in a while. Howard knows it. It's part of the game he has chosen to play.Push the edge by talking to porn stars about sex? Give me a bloody break.I find your understatement of the content of Stern's show rather dishonest. Although, maybe he has stopped sponsoring sexual intercourse in the studio. I generally don't care about Howard Stern.In a time when the government is consolidating media and communicative power, abusing and shredding the constitution, all in the name of a war on terror, it is sad to hear hypocrites yap about the very same thing that would have ensured that their government did not get it so easy. Hey, Stern is part of the machine.Whhen what once was deemed fine for radio is now being castigated, you all hide under the same bloody cloak of a war on terrorism and priorities gone AWOL What the hell do you mean?Tell me, what the hell are you doing for your damn country right now you useless hypocrite? I'm worried about more important things than blumpkins, Tiny.And do not label as a Howard Stern "fan" simply because you need an abstract to attack. It is more than Stern for the bloody umpteenth time. All radio shows are feeling the blunt of a the FCC.Yep.

So much for Howard being "singled out," eh?

And it's their own f@cking faults. Remember that in this society, decency is all well and fine until someone offers you money to rape it.

I could care less about the language or content of the show. I'm just amused that people are upset that they can't have porn 24-7 on all the airwaves at once.

Getting people worked up on Howard Stern's behalf actually serves the FCC's purposes well; it's a sideshow distraction. The real show hasn't begun yet.And what happens when the supposed laws he's breaking are codified? His strategies for protecting himself are quite simply unrealistic at this stage. A freaking 500,000-dollar fine allows that disobedience is not an option.He knows the risks.And let's not forget that you have not seen the bloody Rosetta Stone, nor have you deciphered the writings on it. Someone else did. And unless you can prove that outside mere readings on the Rosetta Stone, you have actually gotten closer to the truth that your "illiterate" or "stupid" neighbour, I suggest you shut up, and appreciate that he helped in your cause.Oh, stop hogging the beer nuts and start breathing.

Why are you pissed that I don't feel sorry for someone who stuck his nose out with the intention of getting it smacked?It is not an issue of priorities. It is an issue of censoring what ought to be a medium of freedom, and has been a medium of freedom.Okay. Tell me ... how does Stern's discussion of blumpkins and other such stuff help to form a more perfect Union, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, or secure the Blessings of Liberty?

It doesn't. He actually weakens the blessings of Liberty by reducing free speech to such petty issues.It makes no sense that you keep battering Stern, as if he someone how warrants that abuse simply because of what he does. What? He doesn't contribute anything to the culture; his radio show lowers standards. He gets exactly what he asks for and demands--as is the case with his current FCC troubles. He is, as a radio host, a human disaster--the epitome of all that's wrong with the last decade at least in this country.

Poor Howard Stern ... getting censored just made his market value go up, just like he planned.

And here you are getting all pissed on his behalf? Why? This is what he wants!Why don't the fucking KKK get the same response from free speech advocates? Why don't you document the response or lack thereof you're so upset about in order that we might compare.What he chooses to due on radio is irrelevant. Fart jokes and general sexual innuendos never killed anyone.Case-in-point.He has lowered the quality of life, how? Well, you, for instance, are this upset about blumpkins. Look into the history of a man named James Callendar. From that to blumpkins and strawberry shortcake.

With such low ideological standards defining people's sense of freedom, we seek lower freedoms.So him being an asshole somehow vindicates your hatred against him? It's not hatred.

Howard Stern might win the right to talk about blumpkins, but that's all he's going to win. Unlike his prior thrashing of the FCC--which has had its predictable but necessary unfortunate effects including a necessary degradation of programming quality to allow for alleged market desires within the new boundaries--I don't have much sympathy for him because this won't be a particularly widespread victory. It won't even touch issues of free speech that are actually important to anyone's life other than Stern and his accountant.I get my share of girls, but nowhere near what he gets, but probably more than you get, and I'm quite satisfied with my unit, thank you very much. Aaah ... I see. So you were talking about the small dicks of all the other Howard Stern fans that aren't you. Makes perfect sense.I know being rich makes your range of potential mates exponential grow, but this is irrelevant Actually, it's rather relevant. It's the difference between getting your thrills from Howard Stern and getting them from a hot chick. You wrote, earlier: Howard Stern serves to satisfy a certain niche of society whose fantasies he plays out every day. I think in this soupbowl we are all stuck in, it is very refereshing that a self professed talentless, ugly buffoon, with a small dick still manages to get his pick of a myriad of beautiful girls.I well understand such sympathies; I envy Huxley's tale of being entertained by J.C. Bose.

And someday, perhaps I will make a Huxley out of myself. But dude ... those fans he helps fantasize can keep fantasizing a la a sexually-inadequate, talentless, ugly buffoon, or they can go out and try to achieve those fantasies.What significance is there in the fact that money would solve a lot of their wishes? They are not rich.They, like Stern, choose their priorities. While even I have some trouble with such a statement, I think it is fairly reflected in standards around the country and world.

So now we've got how many people living vicariously through Howard Stern when they could be doing something useful? And it's all their choice and their right, but this also cycles back to the issue about Howard Stern helping to lower standards in America.Perhaps you'd like to establish how he had lowered American expectation and reduced the America dream. You establish it yourself. How many people are you representing as living vicariously on a steady diet of restroom-blowjobs and such?

I'm all for dirty fantasies, but as a matter of resource allocation, a Howard Stern fan would generally be less of a drain on society if they gave up radio-listening and took up heroin instead.Perhaps you'd like to establish how he had lowered American expectation and reduced the America dream. There is a line that is drawn between what a thing is and what a thing does. In this case, what it is is pornography; what it does is communicate.

But what does it communicate?

It's a very simple-seeming idea that is actually complicated once we set it in motion.

On the surface, it can be reduced to various depictions of resource allocation.

• Bandwidth? Radio communication--outside the US--is very, very important. Consider the passing of Alistair Cooke; I'm 30, and few people my age that I know understand why his life and death were at all significant. Of course, I had no idea he was broadcasting into this year. Or I think of an English inventor who, in the 1990s, designed a portable radio with a crank-handle to power its rechargeable battery. The point was to distribute them in Africa in poor communities. Why? So that they could have an idea of what was happening outside their immediate community--this is apparently still a challenge in many places. So now think of all the porn spam on the net, how much bandwidth that eats up. Yes, Stern has the right to say these things. But I have no need to endorse his waste of bandwidth.

• Time and Thought. Howard Stern gets rich while people pause to think about blumpkins. Except under extremely limited circumstances, this is a waste of time and thought.

• Commercialism. It's hard for someone like me to complain that "nothing is sacred," since sacred is an illusion. But of all the reasons to "broaden our horizons," profit margins should be at the bottom. Were there some vital expression to Stern's filth, I might be more sympathetic. But being mindlessly filthy is what Stern is paid very well to do. I don't fault Stern for the market's rush to catch up; Sipowicz's ass is generally more bothersome than any one this or that that Stern broadcasts. But we aren't offered that blubbery white butt every day. A limited number of bank accounts is a poor reason for lowering the standard of homogenization in the broadcasting industry.

Stern's approach is malicious; it is designed to upset people, to make them squirm. That in and of itself is more offensive than a masturbation or oral sex on the air, or talk of blumpkins. And apparently he's some sort of hero for it.

So on one level, he reduces American standards by helping further deify the anti-hero--the one who sets out to piss people off allegedly for their better interests.

On another, he reduces the American dream by inviting so many people to live vicariously through his rather narrow and myopic perversity.

I don't hold Stern responsible alone. FOX, for instance, bears much responsibility in this.

At any rate, a couple questions I'd like you to address:

• How many liberal speech advocates would you prefer speaking for Howard? One? Ten? All of 'em?
• What would you like of the advocates? Perhaps you missed my link; looking back it really is a small underline: http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/03/far04009.html
•*The First Amendment is limited by the Constitution itself; in the interests of the general Welfare you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded room when there is no fire. What is the redeeming value of Stern's show that can be demonstrated against obscenity? Can you demonstrate that removing Stern's content from the air detracts from the general welfare, or at least fails to promote it? Should Stern have the "right" to secure the blessings of liberty at the expense of the general welfare?

Thanks.

It is no coincidence that the FCC cracks down on Stern after he comes out against Bush. At least somebody mentioned this. I figured it would be a banner item.

And you don't get something, Spidergoat. Howard Stern is part of the establishment. He is instrumental in helping build these radio networks insofar as they have found strength in regular programming. The biggest threat so far to free speech from the corporate domination of the radio waves is a lack of diversity. Being the low benchmark for mass media is a dubious honor, and one in which Stern takes much apparent pride. And when you put Stern and "all radio shows" together next to the low-choice musical selection on the radio ... well? News and information control--that's where the big problem is. Music and programming diversity are merely problematic outside the fight over news and information programming. Howard Stern and a bunch of idiots trying to outcrude each other daily ... well, hey ... when you seek to piss off the authority, every once in a while, they put their foot down. In the end, the FCC will suck a bunch of money from him inasmuch as someone will have to spend for his legal bills, and the government doesn't pay you back when you beat them in court.

And that's what this is about. If I worried for a minute that Stern might lose this issue in the long run, I might be concerned for him. As for the FCC taking a piece out of a major pain in the ass--that's the way it goes.

In the meantime, this is what he does. This is what he wants.

And, because of that, the "Poor Howard!" routine is just ridiculous.That is the essence of the issue, the law does not define indecency, except for the dirty words that Howard studiously avoids. This leaves the issue open to the whim of anyone's interpretation and tyranny. The law should not be subjective in this way. The law should be precise. Now ... I know Stern has broken the law before. It's a fine line, though ... just like the government leaves the adult film industry alone despite the fact that prostitution is illegal. Of course, some of that was even before the movie.

Take Tommy Chong as a comparison. Chong was reviled during his trial for being a lifelong spokesperson, by nature of his work, for illicit drug use. He even apologized in court for his implicit and explicit advocacy of dope. The whole thing made me absolutely sick, but Howard Stern knows the damn rules. If you make a career of challenging and pissing off the establishment, they'll eventually seize hold of a minor thing and tack you to the wall for it.

If Howard Stern played chicken on the freeway, would you argue with God after the fact that he shouldn't have gotten hurt when he ran into the other car?

None of it means that it's right to silence him. But no, I will not have sympathy for a man who got exactly what he hoped to get.

Every time the government comes after him, his value goes up.

And that's a big reason why he does it at all.

He gets paid much money to trample the line. Getting called out on his behavior is just part of how it goes.

Get me responsible discussions of sexuality on broadcast television and then we can talk about the sexual freedom of a radio porno show. In the meantime, finding ways to get around the rules does not mean you're complying with them. I think you'll find that the more precise the law is, the less effective it is. It's why laws get rewritten and nobody likes to f@ck with the Constitution. And it's also why specific flag-burning and abortion amendments don't have a chance, and why a US Constitutional amendment about gay marriage will only take place to reaffirm the equal right of gays to marriage, if any at all. The Constitution is vague--that's part of its staying power.

Howard Stern will win this, eventually. That isn't in question. The propriety of that isn't in question. However, there will be no sympathy where none is called for. Public health, government transparency? Oh, no, no, no. Radio porn is much more important.

I do recognize the political timing of the FCC's move. But Howard Stern knows what's up.

Watch around Sciforums; no matter how few or many rules we make, no matter how broad or narrow, there are people here who will still seek ways to accomplish what the rules prohibit. And they'll merely change superficially the form of their offenses in order to maintain their deliberate attempts to offend.

The same thing in Washington, D.C. Watch the politicians scramble to work around campaign laws. Campaign laws are designed in part to prevent corruption. But all anyone wants to do is find a way to corrupt the system without undertaking a prohibited exercise.

And this is what Howard Stern does with speech and decency.

After the coke-fueled frenzy of 1980s greed, the US was almost spiritually hollowed throughout. The "Woodstock" disaster is a great example. What the hell was up with that? I mean, in the first place, much less the eventual rioting? Apparently the 60s only needed to be revived in order to be bludgeoned to death again. Clinton? Now ... he pulled off some amazing shit, but when you get right down to it, he got away with arguing the definition of "is"!

Say what you want about Clinton, but he did it. Liberals didn't want to care at all--it was a blowjob--and conservatives couldn't mount a coherent offensive. We Americans argued about a blowjob to the tune of forty-million dollars.

Republicans--capitalist sharks--had people thrown in prison over investment profits.

Cats loving dogs, fire and water dancing together ... we make jokes about the eighties, but five years out, the nineties are still nearly ineffable.

Watch Grand Canyon ... that was the "Big Chill" of its day.

And things went downhill. Howard Stern is by no stretch of the imagination solely responsible for the situation. Microsoft is a bigger villain in that process than Stern.

As the economy flew, that's what people latched onto. And they were willing--once again, and so shortly after the last round--to do anything for money. Networks scrambled to lower their standards--we can't pick on Stern without reiterating the FOX Network's contribution to that scramble. I've mentioned Dennis Franz's ass before, and that was just the tip of the great white iceberg.

Howard Stern has capitalized on identifying standards of decency and assaulting them mercilessly.

But he doesn't do it for any constructive purpose. He does it for ratings and money.

I mean, I'm sure that somewhere in the world is child pornography that meets the Supreme Court's standard for social redemption. But I'm not going to be the one to argue that case unless it's a really good film. Polanski, for instance ... there's no doubt that he's done some socially-redeeming work, including the documentary with footage of a snuff film and a 12 year-old porn actress. But that's a really tough case to make. And while Stern does not transgress so apparently or deeply, nor does he transgress for any redeeming reason.

If this really is sheerly about his political shift and Bush's losing his favor ... that's part of the risk that comes when you leave so much trash around for an authority to beat you with and then set out to upset that authority.

"They came for the criminals, but I was not a criminal so I did nothing. They came for the gypsies, but I was not a gypsy so I did nothing. So how can I complain when there was no one left when they came for me?" some body wrote this on a shower wall at Buchenwald. If you don't defend the rights of the weak then one day you will lose the same rights. No one is invincible and if we allow ourselves to let Howard stern be censored then why should we be allowed to speak freely?

No one is invincible and if we allow ourselves to let Howard stern be censored then why should we be allowed to speak freely?

I'm not so sure anyone is paying disservice to our collective societal freedoms by allowing Howard Stern to be 'censored'. I mean, how can anyone not standing up for Howard be held the least bit responsible to the proponents of 'free speach' when he continues to categorically, by race and sex[ual] orientation, insult people?

You may argue that insulting people is not good basis enough to censor someone but, keeping with the spirit of your comment:
"They came for the criminals, but I was not a criminal so I did nothing. They came for the gypsies, but I was not a gypsy so I did nothing. So how can I complain when there was no one left when they came for me?"
This (http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040306/ZUNDEL06/TPComment/TopStories) person would argue the same.

Stern perpetuates the archaic view that women are not worthy of anything but to serve as 'cum dumps' to every mans desire, he insults our intelligence by doing so and is nothing more than the 21st century manifestation of a village idiot unaware of what century he lives. Sure, he was fun for a while but, like most things, times change as do our ideals and societal norms.

The problem I see with free speach is that it is a centuries old freedom being applied to a society that has since evolved. I'll be damned if I support the village idiots right to spout shit - sorry, no place for it in my opinion.

i dont get the whole blumpkin thing, is that what swear words get replaced with on American tv and radio or sumfing???

did you read the post?

exactly, thefountainhed, doesn't all this make you realise how cool New Zealand really is? It's just like Canada, smallified, without the mounties, frenchies and sodomising.

So what is the big failure of free speech advocates?

I mean, is it that nobody but Stern fans signed on to the anti-Oprah campaign?

What's the problem here?

fireguy:
The question should really be: How does it feel to have your 'rights' codefined by a guy with a small dick talking about bangin' a whore
I think it is irrelevant: the specificity that comes out of a codification merely systematizes and ensures that we do not live with the illusion of rights we simply do not possess.


Tiss:


“ Secondly, what does it matter that Howard Stern is rich? ”

On the one hand, it doesn't.
To the other, though, Stern gets paid a ridiculous amount of money specifically to go out and trample decency into the ground. Part of what he does for money is f@ck with the FCC. Every once in a while, they're going to slap back. This is all part of what he does, part of what he asks for, part of what he deserves.
In the long run, he can't lose--it is a speech issue. If he loses, then I'll worry about it.
I owe a great deal to pornographers. Larry Flynt gave his legs for my right to speak. If Howard has to put up with some paperwork, well ... it's what he asked for.
In the long run, after this administration is done for, we can perhaps say that he did not lose. But this is wholly irrelevant. The fact is the man is getting fined for fart jokes, and that is simply absurd. That part of his stick is to fuck with limits and test the government does not imply that we should watch as he also gives his symbolic legs for your right to speak.

I'm not going to worry about a provocateur having to jump through some hoops to make his point when there are far more legitimate speech issues to worry about.
There's a lot going on. Howard Stern, his small dick, and strawberry shortcake can take a number and wait the hell in line.
Tell me what other important medium where free speech is being threatened and why it warrants more attention than Stern and co. This is also not an issue about him having to jump through some hoops-- he is used to jumping through hoops-- this is about having no hoops to jump through in the first place.

While it does transcend Stern, I find it absolutely laughable that he is somehow victimized as a scapegoat. If you play chicken on the freeway, you're
going to get nailed in the ass once in a while. Howard knows it. It's part of the game he has chosen to play.
Of course he was used as a scapegoat. If all the cars on the freeway decide to go for the bright "chicken" dancing on the freeway, this is victimization. He was the initial in the medium.

I find your understatement of the content of Stern's show rather dishonest. Although, maybe he has stopped sponsoring sexual intercourse in the studio. I generally don't care about Howard Stern.
I find that you generally use "dishonest" way too much for it to have much meaning. And no, I generally do not consider fart noises and general spew about nonsensical fantasies about porn stars that big of a deal. Stupid statements like "do you sleep naked? I bet you look freaking hot in your sleep" are not relatively that demeaning or abusive of the right to free speech. I find the deliberately dishonest presentation of the "news" on the many political shows worse.

Hey, Stern is part of the machine.
How so?


“ Whhen what once was deemed fine for radio is now being castigated, you all hide under the same bloody cloak of a war on terrorism and priorities gone AWOL ”

What the hell do you mean?
Before Janet's tits, Stern was allowed to yap about fart all he wanted.


“ Tell me, what the hell are you doing for your damn country right now you useless hypocrite? ”

I'm worried about more important things than blumpkins, Tiny.
Nonsense. You are not worried about more important things you bloody hypocrite. And by the way, what do you expect, that I pull my pants down?

So much for Howard being "singled out," eh?

And it's their own f@cking faults. Remember that in this society, decency is all well and fine until someone offers you money to rape it. I could care less about the language or content of the show. I'm just amused that people are upset that they can't have porn 24-7 on all the airwaves at once.
Singled out in the sense that he was the first and the most concentrated. You should be pissed they cannot, if that is what they want, and some are willing to supply the demand.

Getting people worked up on Howard Stern's behalf actually serves the FCC's purposes well; it's a sideshow distraction. The real show hasn't begun yet.
This is illogical. Were people not worked up over Janet's tit, nothing would have happened in the first place. The F.C.C is a political machine; dissent bends its will.

Oh, stop hogging the beer nuts and start breathing.
I have a glass of wine, and I'm on my porch; the air is beautiful and I'm breathing fine.

Why are you pissed that I don't feel sorry for someone who stuck his nose out with the intention of getting it smacked?


Whatever gave you the notion that I am upset; what makes you think that I am that much concerned that it is Stern? This is not about Stern, even bloody Imus is feeling the blunt of the F.C.C.s nonsense. It is about speech.

Okay. Tell me ... how does Stern's discussion of blumpkins and other such stuff help to form a more perfect Union, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, or secure the Blessings of Liberty?
The content of his show is irrelevant; his ability to have alluded content on his show however is not. This ability-- freedom of expression is paramount in the exercising of a good democracy. He helps to test and ensure that the full extent of this right-- even if most will never need it, is still guaranteed.

It doesn't. He actually weakens the blessings of Liberty by reducing free speech to such petty issues.
LOL. I cannot believe that you are actually arguing from such a bias.

What? He doesn't contribute anything to the culture; his radio show lowers standards. He gets exactly what he asks for and demands--as is the case with his current FCC troubles. He is, as a radio host, a human disaster--the epitome of all that's wrong with the last decade at least in this country. Poor Howard Stern ... getting censored just made his market value go up, just like he planned. And here you are getting all pissed on his behalf? Why? This is what he wants!

Tiss, if anyone is getting all worked up, it is you. His radio show does not lower standards, as none exist. He as a radio show host, performs for an audience-- an a wide and diverse one at that, and said audience enjoy what he presents. Inasmuch as not all may want to be rocket scientists even if they can, is perfectly fine for some to want fart jokes and not analysis from political pundits. To each their own; do not assert the subjective as if it were some trump card, it is not.

Why don't you document the response or lack thereof you're so upset about in order that we might compare.
If you can honestly assert that the response is alike, I will.

“ He has lowered the quality of life, how? ”

Well, you, for instance, are this upset about blumpkins. Look into the history of a man named James Callendar. From that to blumpkins and strawberry shortcake. With such low ideological standards defining people's sense of freedom, we seek lower freedoms.
Nonsense. Why have you taken the illogical stance that I am angry and arguing from such a position? You don't get it do you? The freedom of speech should be as much protected for those who will use it for fart jokes as those who will use to expose and depose oppressive regimes. The principal is that people have varying desires and imports, and one is not above the other—at least from the perspectives of the individuals involved. Therefore, what should we should protect is the right to that freedom of speech.

It's not hatred.
heh.


Howard Stern might win the right to talk about blumpkins, but that's all he's going to win….. It won't even touch issues of free speech that are actually important to anyone's life other than Stern and his accountant.
Whether or not I will extend the right to speech in the direction he took it is rather immaterial; if he loses, I can subsequently lose my right to extend in the direction I may desire.

Aaah ... I see. So you were talking about the small dicks of all the other Howard Stern fans that aren't you. Makes perfect sense.
Nonsense. I spoke of Stern and how he sings about his small dick and how insecure he is about it and how it serves the good of the segment of his audience who may be insecure. I believe it is good for other insecure fool to have such a “role model” if you will. It is impossible for you to conclude about how big my dick is unless I assert such and you believe my assertion or you saw my dick. The latter is clearly not gonna happen, but since you seem to have an infatuation with it, know that I am quite happy with my dick; now move on.

Actually, it's rather relevant. It's the difference between getting your thrills from Howard Stern and getting them from a hot chick. You wrote, earlier:
“ Howard Stern serves to satisfy a certain niche of society whose fantasies he plays out every day. I think in this soupbowl we are all stuck in, it is very refereshing that a self professed talentless, ugly buffoon, with a small dick still manages to get his pick of a myriad of beautiful girls. ”
I well understand such sympathies; I envy Huxley's tale of being entertained by J.C. Bose. And someday, perhaps I will make a Huxley out of myself. But dude ... those fans he helps fantasize can keep fantasizing a la a sexually-inadequate, talentless, ugly buffoon, or they can go out and try to achieve those fantasies.
Again, you miss the point. Much like the way some of my engineering buddies bitch about Gates and his money and some envy and fantasize about his life, do some live through Stern—but then again, it is not that simple, now is it? When I listen to Stern, I’m either laughing or simply shaking my head at his lack of ‘character’. He serves a purpose to me: he makes me laugh; unfortunately I do not get the chance listen to him too often.
And man, we’d all be rich if we all had the ability to become rich, but then we’d really all be poor, yes? Stern knows the vast majority of his audience is young males—he supplies their need. I also do not think it is necessarily the buffoon that is Stern that they live through; he might be their voice, but I think perhaps they are attracted also to the fact that he oversteps.

They, like Stern, choose their priorities. While even I have some trouble with such a statement, I think it is fairly reflected in standards around the country and world. So now we've got how many people living vicariously through Howard Stern when they could be doing something useful? And it's all their choice and their right, but this also cycles back to the issue about Howard Stern helping to lower standards in America.
I get bored and frustrated when in a discussion, another always argues from a bias. You have clearly not established nor can you establish, a standard of decency or dreams. Therefore, please cease asserting time and time again how Stern has lowered standards. These individuals who love his show and are regular followers are such probably because they were similar.

You establish it yourself. How many people are you representing as living vicariously on a steady diet of restroom-blowjobs and such? I'm all for dirty fantasies, but as a matter of resource allocation, a Howard Stern fan would generally be less of a drain on society if they gave up radio-listening and took up heroin instead.
This is your response to this: “ Perhaps you'd like to establish how he had lowered American expectation and reduced the America dream. ?? You outdo yourself with that nonsensical block. 6 million new heroin addicts, and society benefits.

• Bandwidth? Radio communication--outside the US--is very, very important. Consider the passing of Alistair Cooke; I'm 30, and few people my age that I know understand why his life and death were at all significant. Of course, I had no idea he was broadcasting into this year. Or I think of an English inventor who, in the 1990s, designed a portable radio with a crank-handle to power its rechargeable battery. The point was to distribute them in Africa in poor communities. Why? So that they could have an idea of what was happening outside their immediate community--this is apparently still a challenge in many places. So now think of all the porn spam on the net, how much bandwidth that eats up. Yes, Stern has the right to say these things. But I have no need to endorse his waste of bandwidth.
All very ideological, and quite pristine really, except its all bullshit. Networks control the bandwidth and whom they place on these bandwidths, and individuals through their own choice, overwhelmingly listen to Stern and makes him the most listened to radio host. Sure the ideal maybe that this kid in Africa gets to know that Bush started a war in Iraq to look for WMD, :rolleyes but he might not really care; he might simply want to laugh. Thus, insofar as the options are provided that allow access to both the “inane” and the “serious”, then all is fine.

Time and Thought. Howard Stern gets rich while people pause to think about blumpkins. Except under extremely limited circumstances, this is a waste of time and thought.
Nonsense.





Commercialism. It's hard for someone like me to complain that "nothing is sacred," since sacred is an illusion. But of all the reasons to "broaden our horizons," profit margins should be at the bottom.
LOL. You really cannot believe this, or expect most to believe and accept this.

So on one level, he reduces American standards by helping further deify the anti-hero--the one who sets out to piss people off allegedly for their better interests.
I did not realize that there existed an American standard that had that the “hero” not piss anyone of. His was a dream of commercial success, and he achieved this by providing fart jokes, and not being a bloody mobster; in no way does that go counter to American standards. He has no responsibility to acquiesce to your moral standards, whatever the hell they are.

On another, he reduces the American dream by inviting so many people to live vicariously through his rather narrow and myopic perversity.
His listeners choose to live vicariously through his “perversity”, and a perversity I neither deem myopic or narrow. How is journey from a small town nobody to a rich, successful man not represent the American dream? Where is there a rule written that he be a doctor and care to not offend you mother?

• How many liberal speech advocates would you prefer speaking for Howard? One? Ten? All of 'em?
It is irrelevant how many, as long as any defense is not prefaced by an admonishment of Stern and the “filth” he represents.

• What would you like of the advocates? Perhaps you missed my link; looking back it really is a small underline: http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/03/far04009.html
I read it. More is being done now that awareness has slowly crept and others in the medium are getting fucked.

•*The First Amendment is limited by the Constitution itself; in the interests of the general Welfare you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded room when there is no fire. What is the redeeming value of Stern's show that can be demonstrated against obscenity? Can you demonstrate that removing Stern's content from the air detracts from the general welfare, or at least fails to promote it? Should Stern have the "right" to secure the blessings of liberty at the expense of the general welfare?
Firstly, it must be established that Stern is the individual screaming “Fire!” in the crowded theater—that his presence on radio is somehow burdening or detracts from the “general welfare”, and you do not. His is entertainment; the general welfare of the community is highly dependent on distraction through entertainment. Rather than being the one yelling “Fire!” in the crowded theater, he the one yelling “Her tits are fucking nice!” in a crowded theater, and gets laughter as the main response.

fountain...

I think it is irrelevant: the specificity that comes out of a codification merely systematizes and ensures that we do not live with the illusion of rights we simply do not possess.

I disagree. And I think you missed my point - sorry, I'll own that.

Why is it people cloak their defense for Sterns shit-spouting with the free speach safety blanket? Furthermore, when proponents of human rights everywhere speak out against that claim, why do those wrapped in the proverbial blanket think it is theirs alone and boldly state they'll care for it: us, everyone? And what makes Stern the allmighty to which a free speach debate is warranted?

Stern does nothing but piss people off - and for what reason? What agenda? What purpose? To think he's a crusader or savior for/of free speach is an il-formed, il-informed, grossly miscalculated risk to all our rights I'm not willing to take - especially at the hands of those who vehemently and wildly proclaim him as such. Fuq him, his arrogance and, especially, his lack of intelligence - and all those who proudly support him while wrapped in 'our' fuq'n blanket.

Yeah, you're right fountain..., Stern will most definately push the envelope to a point where our broad based right to free speach will be narrowly scoped through codification. And why? Because a man with a loud and dangerous voice, which threatens all our rights, talks about tits, fags, dicks, chicks, ass, and all other meaningless, pointless, offensive bullshit. He's the villiage idiot who's pissed off at being stifled in school for spouting such shit and carries that idiotic, immature, irresponsible behavior into the real world - threatening us all.

Whether you like it or not, our rights are 'not' limitless. They are limited by those who 'push' the limits and, I say again, who wants their rights limited by a feeble man talking about his small dick and bangin' whores (this is no secret, rights are limited by codification)? Go ahead Fountain..., defend free speach by picking the battle which is lost from the get go and as such, threatens us all for no reason whatsoever. Personally, I'd rather exist in an illusion of my rights than a reality created by a fuq'n moron.

I know this sounds a lot like a rant but, I can't stand it when people 'use' the rights based argument to defend someone or something that does not advance our rights but, rather, limits them. Leave him be Fountain..., he does nothing for the collective will to advance our rights.

Let's take this back to the beginning for a moment. Because this discussion disturbs me just a little.


Where are the free speech advocates voicing their overwhelming support for Stern in this manhunt?


Like I said, having a stiff drink before they get involved.

As you yourself note:

More is being done now that awareness has slowly crept and others in the medium are getting fucked.

Check the dates. Specifically, of the article in question and then of your topic post.

I really think you're stating the situation inaccurately:

In the long run, after this administration is done for, we can perhaps say that he did not lose. But this is wholly irrelevant.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, no matter how you cut it. That's the problem with celebrating the last refuge of scoundrels. In the end, yes, we do have to go in these circles every once in a while.

And it helps if we discuss the terms honestly. For instance:

The fact is the man is getting fined for fart jokes, and that is simply absurd.

This is inaccurate. The transcript you posted, for instance, contains the following:

MV: I heard a new one the other day. It was the "David Copperfield."
HS: That's right.
MV: Okay, do you want to explain it, since I... When you're goin' like a dog…
HS: Right.
MV: …and you're about to finish and instead you don't finish, you spit on her and then you turn around and when she turns her face around then you go… So it's kind of like an illusion…
HS: Right.
MV: to David Copperfield.
RQ: Sleight of hand.
HS: Misdirection.
MV: Classic misdirection.
HS: You trick her. There's a million of them, but uh, I'll post them on the web.
RQ: Yes, because people need to know. These aren't in the regular dictionary.

The above section refers to behavior that qualifies as sexual assault.

Additionally, the transcript you provided begins with part of the specific issue in question. Stern is going straight after the seven deadlies. From the central words at issue is the consideration of how to get around them? In other words, it's like people are treating a "no trespassing zone" as if the rule is, "don't sneak through the gate." The idea being, then, that if you can pole vault over the fence or drop in from a helicopter, then you suddenly have the right to trespass.

Whether or not the no-trespassing zone is a legal establishment is at the heart of the issue, and that's what Stern is after. The FCC can easily draw a line at the fact that he's in the no-trespassing zone, and now everybody gets to go through the painful process of arguing it out.

However, it's a little more than fart jokes that we're discussing here. Stop downplaying Stern's provocateurism.

That part of his stick is to fuck with limits and test the government does not imply that we should watch as he also gives his symbolic legs for your right to speak.

Hyperbole. Did you bring a shovel or do you have to eat your way out?

Really, that's ... dishonest. You can say that if Stern somehow loses. But right now it's a clear overstatement.

At this point we need to split this into a couple of different sections at least:

On Free Speech Itself

Tell me what other important medium where free speech is being threatened and why it warrants more attention than Stern and co.

You know why Stern does it on the radio? Because he can't do it on television.

There is no phrase regarding well-regulated in the First Amendment.

Radio is a more important medium in other parts of the world than it is here. The radio-related issues we fight about in this country are vapid. But that alone doesn't lower the priority of Stern's case.

But perhaps you hadn't been paying attention to journalism. Between governmental "security" concerns and corporate profit concerns, there is little room left for real news. Watch closely; a large amount of headline news is written according to the press releases.

Print, television, and electronic journalism are constantly under attack. The information by which people in the community make the decisions that affect their own and each others' lives is constantly under siege.

Why does this warrant more attention? Because it pertains to more vital issues--that is, it pertains to issues that have direct bearing on our lives.

There's a big difference in the principles of free speech when it comes to "entertainment," "art," or "information." (At some level, it's all "information," but we're not that abstract yet.)

Take a look at two issues that can be had on all counts: Michael Moore and Howard Stern.

Howard Stern's show does contain news and commentary (e.g. "information"), just as Michael Moore's film does. Howard Stern's show is most definitely an artistic piece, as should be remembered of Mr. Moore's film. And both serve as entertainment.

But what is the controversy? Certainly they share an "information" aspect: both present the news and commentary in a manner the Bush administration apparently does not appreciate. The artistic controversy can be measured in a sense by the entertainment controversy, because in both cases the entertainment aspect is also in pursuit of profit. So how does one offend? Moore challenges the conventional wisdom with the effect of criticizing a president he's known to dislike. Stern aims squarely after the line between decency and obscenity and seeks to rape it. Now, superficially, I have no criticism of that method in and of itself. Sometimes this needs to be done, and who am I to set the ultimate criteria for when those times are?

But, when we invoke the idea of obscenity, we reach another issue that we need to clarify:

• . . . this is about having no hoops to jump through in the first place.

• The content of his show is irrelevant; his ability to have alluded content on his show however is not.


What you need to understand is that while the First Amendment says nothing about a well-regulated anything, there are certain limits on free speech which are drawn according to the interests of the people. These interests can be vaguely defined by the Constitution (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html) itself:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So perhaps you might wish to reconsider your response to the question of how Stern's discussion of blumpkins and other such stuff contribute to those Constitutional aspects by which we can consider the whole of the US Constitution and its Amendments.

The content and the "alluded" content have direct relevance when seeking the line between the decent and the obscene. The real question is whether the FCC can make a case that Stern's broadcasts fail the Roth (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=354&invol=476) standard:

All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance - unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion - have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests; but implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance.

Source: U.S. Supreme Court - 354 U.S. 476 (1957) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=354&invol=476)

And this is why I think Stern will prevail in the end. It's really difficult to make the legal argument that anything short of child pornography is utterly without redeeming social importance. Were it only fart jokes, I don't think the stiff drink would be needed. But how one treats an issue which falls within the realm of sexual assault while simultaneously seeking backdoors around rules which even I find worth challenging are the kinds of issues that just might ... you know, inasmuch as common sense is concerned ... invite some critical scrutiny.

Problems I'm Having With Your Response

At the outset, you're making excuses for Clear Channel:

• Shock jock Stern axed after fine (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3613555.stm) (BBC)
• Infinity Challenges Howard Stern's Fine; His Ratings are up, so They Can Afford It (http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/04/1692648.php) (indymedia)
• Howard Stern's ratings up (http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/27/media.stern.reut/) (CNN)

• Radio DJ Howard Stern has been dropped by US media giant Clear Channel after regulators fined it $495,000 (£270,000) for indecency in his show . . . Clear Channel said it was not willing to shoulder the "great liability" of broadcasting the popular and outspoken presenter. (BBC)

• When Infinity responded to the Commission's initial Letter Of Inquiry, it maintained that the cited material wasn't actionably indecent and didn't contain any description or depiction of sexual or excretory organs or activities in a patently offensive manner. Infinity also argued that the Commission's generic indecency definition is unconstitutional . . . Now, in a 64-page filing, the company claims that the Commission has "abruptly and systematically altered almost every aspect of indecency enforcement in ways that dramatically undermine the lawfulness of the overall scheme" . . . The nearly three-year-old broadcast that netted Stern's first indecency fine since June '98 involved Howard and company defining terms like "blumpkin," "balloon knot" and "the David Copperfield." (indymedia)

To address some points you've raised in this context:

• Should we also say fuck to the right of due process?

• Also, how can you assert that you do not think he will be "taken down" when the fact remains that the Clear station group (the most powerful of the radio entities) has dropped him from their stations?


On the point regarding due process, how can you possibly say that? Clear Channel has undertaken the due process issue by firing hosts and begging for mercy. Infinity has undertaken the due process issue by making a stand.

Clear Channel's choice to drop Stern is suggestive of a different but similar problem. Companies like Clear Channel and Infinity are part of the problem with radio broadcasting in the first place.

So first off, I have a problem with any argument that makes Clear Channel a victim. If "poor, oppressed" Clear Channel gets its way, government censorship will be the least of your worries insofar as radio broadcasting is concerned. Clear Channel was happy to take the profits, but they're unwilling to shoulder the responsibility. Rather cowardly and hypocritical, as it is in no small part the ratings of the schlock movement that helped bring the radio conglomerates to power.

In the end, Infinity, one of the reviled conglomerates, is doing the only right thing it can; it has drawn a line and they're not going to move off it at this time. In the meantime, that might be a good thing. Because it's hard to make the case that he's being taken down when his ratings are up. (In fact, Infinity says the first quarter saw Stern's strongest ratings since fall 2000. See CNN link above.)

So add to your bucking for Clear Channel the idea that we might say fuck to due process, and also the idea that Stern's ratings are actually up because of this situation--I'm not sure what it is you're getting so frustrated about.

Which reminds me ....

Whatever gave you the notion that I am upset; what makes you think that I am that much concerned that it is Stern?

Well ... there was the tone of your topic post. And the title. There's your disgust at the not-yet substantiated failure of the free-speech advocates to trip over themselves trying to get in Stern's way. And the arguments drawn out of thin air (fuck to the right of due process, &c.), the suggestion that I shut up, and also the occasional use of the word "fucking" in order to rhetorically reinforce the argument. These are all signs of irritation. There's also that exasperation when you decided to take it one step further and go fuck, yourself. (Er ....) There's the sarcasm of "your highness," a certain degree of hyperbole throughout your part of the topic, and also a tendency toward irrationality.

By the time you get around to tell me what I think and what I should be thinking, well, you've already asked the question about what gives me the notion that you're upset.

Which dovetails nicely:

I find that you generally use "dishonest" way too much for it to have much meaning

'Tis in the eye of the beholder, so any lack of meaning is your own. Personally, I don't see what's so hard about it. Choosing to represent issues inaccurately in order to affect the outcome of the discussion and bring about false conclusions based on inappropriately recontextualized drivel seems to fall squarely within the realm of the dishonest. That it's becoming the popular mode for argumentation isn't my doing; I'm not nearly powerful enough to set trends in the national discourse or change the course of the broadcasting ratings game.

But trying to understate the content of Stern's show in order to overstate the perceived offense of the fine slapped against him? Such deliberate misrepresentation most certainly isn't honest.

I understand why "dishonest" might not have much meaning for you. But boy, you've got to carry that weight.

Like when you wrote, "Stupid statements like "do you sleep naked? I bet you look freaking hot in your sleep" are not relatively that demeaning or abusive of the right to free speech."

Well? What of it? I don't have much of a problem with those, and while I generally endorse Stern's right to say what he wants, your representation of the show also happens to leave out the sexual-assault aspect.

Is that just not an important consideration to you?

And how is it that you have to ask, "How so?" when I write that Stern is part of the machine? Stern is the point man for this movement in radio. He is the driving force, the standard-bearer. He generates as much as $100 million a year for Infinity. (See CPI (http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/report.aspx?aid=239&sid=200)) Infinity saw $3.75 billion in revenues in 2002 (see Hoover's (http://www.hoovers.com/infinity-broadcasting/--ID__58372--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml)).

And think of this: Infinity is, while a leading broadcaster in the U.S., small by comparison. Its 185 stations in 40 markets don't even match up with Clear Channel's 1,270 U.S. stations. Why is the smaller of the two the one making the stand? Ah, yes, because in addition to criticizing Bush, Stern apparently had words for some of Clear Channel's directors who have ties to Bush.

Do you think that we can blame the decline of radio on Britney Spears, Rush Limbaugh, and Disney? Howard Stern has a part to play in that, as well. Admittedly, the "decline of radio" is a tenuous argument, but the movement toward consolidation (http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_3_26/ai_112896967) going on for the last eight or so years is leaving us with more and more racket-programming; it's the new payola (http://dir.salon.com/ent/feature/2001/03/14/payola/index.html).

And this is part of what Stern's show and the rush in his wake to the crude ratings game contributes to. Whether he wants it or not, the radio conglomerates owe Stern and his schlock buddies much thanks. The success of the schlock hosts has, in part, empowered the radio takeover.

The situation is a lot bigger than you're constructing it. I mean, when we have to quibble about the honesty or dishonesty of intentional misrepresentation, we're treading into the ridiculous.

but since you seem to have an infatuation with it, know that I am quite happy with my dick

Hey, you're the one making dicks an integral part of the discussion.

I get bored and frustrated when in a discussion, another always argues from a bias. You have clearly not established nor can you establish, a standard of decency or dreams.

You know, I live in a society that generally views productive, utilitarian, and useful endeavors more positively than the banal, immature, and useless.

Too bad you looked right past the important part: Think of it as a matter of resource allocation.

Or, as Microsoft used to say, "Where do you want to go today?"

To Blumpkinville, chief! And step on it!

I mean, I'm willing to reject the positive/negative regard for utility and uselessness, but I'm well aware that I will meet a certain amount of resistance if I do. Cause/effect. Action/reaction.

I have established a standard of decency. It's called the Roth standard and it's the standard set by the US Supreme Court. It is the standard the FCC will have to demonstrate, and the standard that Infinity is betting against. It is also the standard that Clear Channel has chosen to run scared from.

Which gives rise to the opportunity to mention that one of the things that frustrates me in a discussion even more than baseless hyperbole (which can be part of a carefully-crafted politic) is when someone doesn't understand the basis of the issues upon which they base their complaint.

Due process? It's coming.

A standard of decency? There are many, but Roth is the best-known and quite apparently the relevant one.

Therefore, please cease asserting time and time again how Stern has lowered standards.

You're right. People spending their mental efforts thinking about vital issues has no greater value than people spending their time talking about blumpkins.

Was it Robin Williams who observed that maybe Darwin was wrong?

This is your response to this: “Perhaps you'd like to establish how he had lowered American expectation and reduced the America dream.?? You outdo yourself with that nonsensical block. 6 million new heroin addicts, and society benefits.

It's a matter of resource allocation.

The individual heroin addicts will disappear and cease draining social resources more quickly, and overall they are less likely to breed in large numbers.

Networks control the bandwidth and whom they place on these bandwidths

So much for your "free speech" argument. :rolleyes:

Additionally, I find your lack of understanding as regards the significance of mass media in human social evolution rather quite disturbing given the arguments you're trying to make.

You were asking about standards. Radio communication elsewhere is more important to the daily lives of the individuals who hear it than it is in the United States. Part of this, of course, is television. And part of it is the internet. But in order to play to the largest audience you play to the lowest common denominator. You're almost always aiming lower when you chase ratings within a network-broadcast structure.

Nonsense.Well, that settles it. I mean, I can't imagine how I can possibly respond to an unsubstantiated declaration from someone whose demonstrative grasp of the issues pertaining to his own topic is apparently weak.

You really cannot believe this, or expect most to believe and accept this.

I do believe it. I don't see what's so hard to grasp. However, you're right that I don't expect most people to believe and accept this. It's too direct an expression of what they claim to want to actually pursue.

Profit margins are generally a poor justification for anything.

Of course, since you haven't really explained what's so hard about it, we can only wonder at the weakness of your grasp.

I did not realize that there existed an American standard that had that the “hero” not piss anyone of.[/color]

It died in the 1980's. Too romantic to survive the new budget priorities.

But you're also on the wrong idea; it's not about pissing people people off. The anti-hero is revered not for his virtue in reflection of human convention, but rather for his unwillingness to be virtuous in comparison to human convention. These people are necessary in any society to a degree, but I'm always hesitant to ask people to think back before the advent of Jim McMahon and Brian Bosworth. Even the social-virtue panic crowd didn't imagine the kind of acceleration that came shortly thereafter. Live and learn.

You'd be amazed at how many American standards we've ditched in the last twenty-five years. Standards just aren't good for the economy.

[color=darkred]His listeners choose to live vicariously through his “perversity”, and a perversity I neither deem myopic or narrow.

Perversity is rarely narrow but generally myopic. However, in Stern's case, such a pointed perversity must necessarily be narrow.

How is journey from a small town nobody to a rich, successful man not represent the American dream?

(chortle!)

Okay, look ... I admit that you're the first Stern fan I've ever heard invoke that part of the American dream.

On the other hand, how does a journey from an orphan to a national leader not reflect the American dream, except for the examples generally take place outside the US? But then again, such is the result of defining the terms that way. I mean, it sounds great. Even better than Clinton's poor-man-to-the-White-House-I-feel-your-pain mantra. Except that the general condition also allows for some of the most hideous folks in the history of humanity.

But ... live and learn. I didn't know that Stern's chief legacy was his rags-to-riches story. I suppose that's a good thing to know, though. Since the US has so few rags-to-riches stories to tell. Hopefully it won't become a trend that would allow for the mythologizing of a rags-to-riches template.

It is irrelevant how many, as long as any defense is not prefaced by an admonishment of Stern and the “filth” he represents.

So much for your "free speech" argument. :rolleyes:

]Firstly, it must be established that Stern is the individual screaming “Fire!” in the crowded theater—that his presence on radio is somehow burdening or detracts from the “general welfare”, and you do not. His is entertainment; the general welfare of the community is highly dependent on distraction through entertainment. Rather than being the one yelling “Fire!” in the crowded theater, he the one yelling “Her tits are fucking nice!” in a crowded theater, and gets laughter as the main response.

I won't blame Howard Stern for the misdirection of your response.

There are limitations on free speech. Safety (e.g. general welfare) is the reason you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Decency, while a much more vague idea, is also something that exists for the general welfare. It is very difficult to establish the absolute lack of social redemption, but that's the FCC's problem. Infinity obviously thinks it's a pretty easy standard to defeat. Clear Channel is afraid of it.

Where is your anger at Clear Channel?

Why are you angry on Stern's behalf? Not only did he get what he wants--e.g. a showdown with the government--but his ratings are up, just as one might hope by such behavior.

Be happy for him. He's going to embarrass the US government again, he's going to make bank, and he's going to be even more firmly ensconced as a living legend in the minds of those whose idea of freedom is limited only by their own lack of ambition.

I just don't understand what the problem you're having is. Does it have to do with the war keeping this out of the daily headline rotation? Are people not rushing quickly and thickly enough to the circle-jerk homage to the deity of Howard Stern? What reaction short of people forfeiting their opinions or principles will satisfy you?
____________________

• BBC News. "Shock jock Stern axed after fine." April 9, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3613555.stm
• Boehlert, Eric. "Pay for Play." Salon.com. March 14, 2001. See http://dir.salon.com/ent/feature/2001/03/14/payola/index.html
• CNN.com. "Howard Stern's ratings up." April 28, 2004. See http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/27/media.stern.reut/
• Dunbar, John. "Indecency on the Air." Center for Public Integrity. April 9, 2004. See http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/report.aspx?aid=239&sid=200
• Hoover's Online. "Infinity Broadcasting Co." See http://www.hoovers.com/infinity-broadcasting/--ID__58372--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml
• indymedia. "Infinity Challenges Howard Stern's Fine; His Ratings are Up, so They Can Afford To." April 28, 2004. See http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/04/1692648.php
• Roth v. United States - 354 U.S. 476. See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=354&invol=476
• Satzman, Darrell. "Clustered radio stations accelerate executive turnover." Los Angeles Business Journal. January 19, 2004. See http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_3_26/ai_112896967
• United States Constitution. See http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Between the rantings, you neglect to mention that the airwaves upon which the Howard Stern boarcasts his show are owned by, and leased from, the public at large. Questions of free speech and civil liberties et al do not apply; questions of civil and contractual law do.

Tiassa,

You have a ridiculous affinity for writing pointlessly overlong posts. At this stage in my life I cannot devote the 1hr+ of time that it would take to dissect every bloody line.


Your entire relevant argument is that Stern garners controversy and attention by essentially hovering on the obscene and he serves nothing for the common cause. Therefore, arguments of free speech are irrelevant as he is beneath the standard of decency. Others have been been pressed but their relevancy is debatable.

However,

And this is why I think Stern will prevail in the end. It's really difficult to make the legal argument that anything short of child pornography is utterly without redeeming social importance. Were it only fart jokes, I don't think the stiff drink would be needed. But how one treats an issue which falls within the realm of sexual assault while simultaneously seeking backdoors around rules which even I find worth challenging are the kinds of issues that just might ... you know, inasmuch as common sense is concerned ... invite some critical scrutiny.


I have established a standard of decency. It's called the Roth standard and it's the standard set by the US Supreme Court. It is the standard the FCC will have to demonstrate, and the standard that Infinity is betting against. It is also the standard that Clear Channel has chosen to run scared from.


You were asking about standards. Radio communication elsewhere is more important to the daily lives of the individuals who hear it than it is in the United States. Part of this, of course, is television. And part of it is the internet. But in order to play to the largest audience you play to the lowest common denominator. You're almost always aiming lower when you chase ratings within a network-broadcast structure.

are contradictory within your argument structure.

And no, I did not indicate clear channel was the victim.


You're right. People spending their mental efforts thinking about vital issues has no greater value than people spending their time talking about blumpkins.

Was it Robin Williams who observed that maybe Darwin was wrong?

“ This is your response to this: “Perhaps you'd like to establish how he had lowered American expectation and reduced the America dream.?? You outdo yourself with that nonsensical block. 6 million new heroin addicts, and society benefits. ”


It's a matter of resource allocation.

The individual heroin addicts will disappear and cease draining social resources more quickly, and overall they are less likely to breed in large numbers.

And I suppose the countless sports shows on radio are equally draining of social resources? I think perhaps your understanding of social evolution by means of distraction is very much underdeveloped. Stern serves the same purpose as sports or a chicken fight. To claim that resources are being mismanaged when millions seek his broadcasts is very much illogical.

Between the rantings, you neglect to mention that the airwaves upon which the Howard Stern boarcasts his show are owned by, and leased from, the public at large. Questions of free speech and civil liberties et al do not apply; questions of civil and contractual law do.
Of course questions of free speech and civil liberties apply secifically because they are leased from the public and not from say a private institution.