Reply #119: Not on side of millionaire... [View All]

The KKK would like to see me, and others, killed. But I will defend their right to say what they want. I find Ann Coulter devisive, mean-spirited, lying, and demeaning to many minority groups. But I will defend her right to say what she wants. Would you defend either of these? How do you feel about flag burning?

I respect the fact that you do not like Stern's show, and that YOU feel he exploits women. But what I don't respect is that you want him off the air simply because of what YOU think. It seems to have nothing to do with laws, and I find that an extremely dangerous attitude. Simply because you don't like the message is NOT good enough. What's to stop "them" from then pulling off MTV, banning songs from the air...and then books? And then those silly lawn decorations of the fat woman bending over in the garden! It IS an all or nothing proposition. Living with messages and views you vehemently dislike and disagree with is a fundamental criterion for living in this country. And expressing these views, a fundamental right. To not respect a peron's right to express his or her views and to not respect a person because they DEFEND these rights is simply saying...."You are an idiot becasue you don't agree with me." How very Bill O'Reilly of you.

By the way, exploitation is defined as; "Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes". Women get $10,000 worth of cosmetic surgery, Howard satisfies his juvenile side...who gets the most out of it? Sounds like bartering to me...albeit somewhat prurient. It's all consentual and people know what they are in for. And it's not like Howard is denying them food, shelter, ar life. Yes. it can be considered exploitation....but is it exploitation along the lines of US corporations using 12 year olds to make clothing for pennies a day? But I digress, I am not trying to defend Howard or change your mind about him.

Do you honestly believe that yelling "Fire" in a movie theater is the same as someone saying "anal sex" on the air. Do you honeslty believe that the effects are the same? The laws don't. And do you honestly believe that the public are in SUCH need of protection...that they can't make their own judgements and decions about what they want to listen to?

Indecency laws are fuzzy and are very much based on "contemporary community standards". You want to tell ME what that means? Does the fact the Stern has the highest ratings contribute anything to "community standards".

And let's talk about the way the FCC has handled this. On March 18, AFTER Stern bashed Bush, the FCC proposed a $27,500 fine against Stern for a broadcast that aired in Detroit on July 26, 2001. Before that action, Infinity and Stern had not been cited since June 1998.

And let's talk about how Clear Channel has handled this. On Feb. 24, Stern and a guest talked about sex for a while, and then Stern took phone calls from listeners. One caller asked the guest if he’d ever had sex with a black woman. The caller, used the n-word, and asked if black women smelled like watermelons. Within 24 hours, Clear Channel had suspended Stern from the six Clear Channel stations that carried him. Now, the remark in question was obviously hateful and asinine. But does it justify yanking Stern? Stern didn’t say the word and certainly didn’t endorse it. He hung up on the caller and rebuked him on air. And this was after he had criticized Bush.

It's not about defending one person, it's about a dangerous precedent that could be set and THAT IS being set.

Pressure from their religious right and ultra-conservative funders...large corporate media with huge GOP ties, and the FCC, wanting to reward loyal supporters: It's a vocal minority that is deciding what what we can say and what we can hear. And it's NOT about voting anybody out, it's about defending what is inherently ours. If you don't care, then you have no right to complain when they ticket your garden gnome and decide that NPR can't air La Traviata because sex and syphilis are mentioned.