I am not really a Stern fan, BUT he has a huge following from Mainstream America..... maybe he spices up their life a little...

Both Bush Sr. and Jimmy Carter were much more religious than the current Bush. But, you didn't see them pushing the envelope on the Christian right nearly as much. I am not certain when he became a born again Christian :-)

I remember when Kennedy was running - there was a big hullabuloo about having a Catholic Presdident. Something about separation of Church & State......

Yet we have people up in arms about Nativity scenes & the 10 Commandments being removed...... I guess those battles were too small for him to intercede in? He is too busy messing with peoples freedoms on a National scale.

Whoa this blows, I live in Nebraska, we don't get the Stern show here.All the same, I lived in Reno for a number of years, Howard was my morning attitude adjustment, started my day off with a chuckle.
I guess it is more the Bush administratons efforts to turn this into the U.S.S.A.
Wether or not I like Howard, really has nothing to do wwith how outraged I am at this.

I watch him on DirectTV but it wouldn't effect me in the least if they took him off.

If you are outraged then do something about it.

I think theres more worthy fights than defending anal sex talk on daytime commerical media.

Hell no...I bet the secret police are lookin for me already.
I guess one good thing that will come from this........there's 20 million votes that hiel Bushler won't be getting.

It seems that some of you are not understanding any of this... it is not stern... it is the double standard that these people are implementing... going after one person because he is an easy target and not someone elses who is more popular....

Here... maybe this will help you understand... Acacia.... going after adult webmasters over a patent infringement and not microsoft, real media or apple... the ones who make it possible to stream video or audio.... or mainstream business to make them pay for the use of their technology.

Get it now? Double standards.

If you are gonna enforce rules... make the rules clear... There has been NO determination of the term "obscene"... so if you do not define what is and what is not obscene... how can you stay within the guidelines?

So what you find obscene... others may not... so if you say something that others would consider obscene.. then you get fined...

lol :helpme

Same thing - breasts are scary and offensive!!

sterns the man

50 sterns

hopefully the regulations will lighten up in the next few years. we'll see.

lets worry about sensorship when people are being killed.

lets take a person off the airwaves who has opened people's eyes and has set record advertising rates.

lets bring this back to the 50's when people who wanted to speak their minds, and did, were put in jail and accused of being communists.

i know, lets just weld the mouths shut of everyone we don't like, agree with or don't want to hear just because........

stern has made history with the way radio is conducted, the way talk shows are conducted and if you think about it, in an indirect manner, he has changed the way news is conducted and the way movies are made.

he was one of the first, if not THE first, to bring out lesbian awareness followed by gay awareness. not because he fought for the rights but because he talked about it publically when everyone else was too tight lipped about it.

in listening to his show yesterday morning, an independent survey was conducted (because some did not think that stern and his audience had the ability to sway the election) and that survey showed that 79% of his listners alone would not be voting for bush. do you know what 79% of his market is? do you know what a sway that is? granted this was more of brownbacks doing.

so, lets not worry about beheadings, foreign policy, the economy or even the homeless in our own country; lets worry about the fact that kids, who have a far worse vocabulary then i have ever had, and religious freaks hear, see, and do things that are considered indecent. don't blame the parents of kids who swear to high hell and back for their lack of parental control; lets not blame them for the fact that they will buy their kids GTA3 and then complain about the violence. lets not blame them for the fact that they let their kids stay up and watch whatever it is they watch. oh and lets not forget that these same parents will do nothing to filter out adult information on the net YET they want to blame everyone else for indecency and obscinity! same goes for these religious freaks.

if god intended for us to be so stoic, sterile and boring then the concept of entertainment would have never come to light. times change and with that people will need to change. if you dont want your kids to see something, DONT LET THEM WATCH IT! if you dont want them to hear something DONT LET THEM LISTEN!

if you dont want to see, hear or be involved with reality, and the same goes for your kids, then build a bunker and keep yourself and your kids sheltered. be sure not to let them back in school while youre at it.

this is a time where reality is more apparent then ever and if i had kids, i would want them to know what is happening in the world. i would not show my kids beheading videos but i would explain to them that some parts of the world are not as friendly as others and that is life. i would not give my kid internet access to the web (although not much can be done when the they are not with you....you just hope you raised them right but all kids are curious and that cannot be stopped). if i didnt want my kids involved in any sort of violence, i would not let them watch it or play games that associate with violence and i would most certainly not let my kids listen to stern until they were old enough although kids these days are far more crafty then we were.

see how simple that is. people control their own lives and to blame others is to not acknowledge one's own failure. this stern incident started because some parent was listening to a show, that was rather graphic, and thought if my kid heard this...blah blah blah. what the hell is your kid doing home between 6am and 11am and knowing the type of show stern conducts, why would you be so stupid as to let your kid listen? good parenting!

Just heard the Michael Moore will not be allow to advertise his movie on tv or radio after july 13th. Hell, CNN is the only place I have seen it advertised to begin with.

Talk about bullshit censorship. :321GFY

Why the FCC should die
June 7, 2004, 4:00 AM PT
By Declan McCullagh

It's time to abolish the Federal Communications Commission.

The reason is simple. The venerable FCC, created in 1934, is no longer necessary.

Its justification for existence was weak 70 years ago, but advances in technology since then have eliminated whatever arguments remained. Central planning didn't work for the Soviet Union, and it's not working for us. The FCC is now an agency that does more harm than good.

Consider some examples of bureaucratic malfeasance that the FCC, with the complicity of the U.S. Congress, has committed. The FCC rejected long-distance telephone service competition in 1968, banned Americans from buying their own non-Bell telephones in 1956, dragged its feet in the 1970s when considering whether video telephones would be allowed and did not grant modern cellular telephone licenses until 1981--about four decades after Bell Labs invented the technology. Along the way, the FCC has preserved monopolistic practices that would have otherwise been illegal under antitrust law.

These technologically backward decisions have cost Americans tens of billions of dollars.

More recently, the FCC has experienced a string of embarrassing losses, when its grand telecommunications plans were repeatedly vetoed by the courts. A majority of the commissioners want to force local phone companies to pay government-mandated rates when long-distance providers like AT&T and MCI use their phone lines. A federal appeals court recently shot down that scheme and gave the Bush administration until June 15 to appeal to the Supreme Court. There's already talk about higher telephone bills becoming a campaign issue this fall.

Meanwhile, the FCC is hard at work, trying to figure out how to muzzle Howard Stern and make a national example of Janet Jackson's right breast. Commissioners are planning how to order voice-over-Internet Protocol (VoIP) companies to comply with arguably unlawful wiretapping requests from the FBI.

In a sop to Hollywood, the FCC has decided that any device capable of receiving digital television signals must follow a complicated set of "broadcast flag" regulations. When those rules take effect in mid-2005, they will put some PC tuner card makers out of business.

These signs warn of an agency that is overreaching. If the FCC had been in charge of overseeing the Internet, we'd likely be waiting for the Mosaic Web browser to receive preliminary approval from the Wireline Competition Bureau. Instead, the Internet has transformed from a research curiosity into a mainstay of the world's economy--in less time than it took the FCC to approve the first cell phone licenses.

Even ardent supporters of the FCC should admit that there's less justification for its existence after the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which removed some barriers to competition. Local phone customers don't need to worry about the Bells' monopolistic practices, because they effectively aren't monopolies anymore. Cable customers don't need to worry much about monopolistic practices because of satellite TV. Eventually, fiber connections will transport every kind of data.

Historical justification
The original justification for existence of the FCC was to rein in an unruly marketplace. That thinking dates back to the 1920s, when Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover, an engineer by training, was worried about the unregulated new industry of broadcasting. Hundreds of radio stations had been launched, and the only requirement was that they register with the Commerce Department.

Conflicts began to arise. The Navy complained of the "turbulent condition of radio communication." But courts were already undertaking the slow but careful common-law method of crafting a set of rules for the new medium. An Illinois state court decided in 1926, for instance, that Chicago broadcaster WGN had the right to a disputed slice of spectrum, because "priority of time creates a superiority in right."

But Hoover and Congress didn't give the courts a chance. The Radio Act of 1927, followed by the Communications Act of 1934, gave the FCC unlimited power to assign frequencies, approve broadcasters' power levels and revoke licenses on a whim. The FCC already enjoyed the power to regulate telephone lines and eventually would accumulate the authority to regulate cable as well.

Abolishing the FCC does not mean airwave anarchy.

What it means is returning to bottom-up law rather than the top-down process that has characterized telecommunications for the last 80 years.

How to do it...
In his excellent 1997 book "Law and Disorder in Cyberspace," Manhattan Institute fellow Peter Huber describes how the privatization process could work. Huber proposes that the government sell off standard units of spectrum--10kHz for AM radio, 6MHz for television, 25MHz for cellular, 40MHz for PCS--using existing geographical contours for each type of frequency.

"Once the standard parcels are defined, they can be sold to the highest bidders," Huber writes. "To keep for how long? Forever. Just like land." If just one UHF (ultrahigh frequency) television station in Los Angeles were permitted to transfer its spectrum to a third cellular provider, Huber estimates, "the overall public gain would be about $1 billion, or so the government itself estimated in 1992." Wireless technologies would be huge winners, if the spectrum were privatized.

What if disputes over spectrum arose? The answer is simple. Whoever owned the rights to that slice of virtual real estate would locate the illicit broadcaster, march into the local courthouse and get a restraining order to pull the plug on the transmitter. Trespass is hardly a new idea, and courts are well-equipped to deal with it.

One fear is that some predatory monopolist, a Microsoft of the airwaves, would end up owning all of the spectrum. That won't happen. First, the market value of the spectrum would approach $1 trillion, out of the reach of any individual corporation. Second, antitrust laws would remain on the books. The Department of Justice could wield the Sherman Antitrust Act to challenge unlawful conduct and block mergers.

Now is the perfect time to ask whether the FCC should continue to exist. Congress is considering revisions to the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and some courageous politicians are wondering out loud whether the hundreds of pages of legalese are still necessary.

At a hearing last month, Rep. Chris Cox, R-Calif., asked whether "perhaps we should declare victory" and ditch the FCC. Beyond the economic cost of missed opportunities caused by regulation, it would also immediately save taxpayers $300 million a year.

It's true that imagining a telecommunications world without the FCC is not easy. But imagining a telecommunications world not dominated by Ma Bell was difficult two decades ago, and it was not easy for the Eastern European countries to imagine life without the Soviet Union.

Since then, those formerly communist nations have privatized resources formerly owned by their governments, with remarkable results. Estonia is Europe's new economic wonder: revenue from state-owned property is a smaller percentage of the economy than it is in the United States, and its economy is growing more than twice as fast as ours.

That should be a lesson. It's time for the FCC to go.




Source: Why the FCC should die.((Cnet article))

That's the problem.

People just talk about it and all the other problems all day long.

Have you ever wrote a letter to your congressman or any other representative?

...Because people like the ones who took Stern off the air have - and they usually include checks (campaign contributions).

But your representatives get worried when masses of people let them know that they know about XYZ issue and want that representative to _do something_ about it or it's his or her ass come election time.

x

If you read all the posts you would see... yes.. I have written my congressman, the FCC, Bush, and a few others. But I will be damned that I am gonna pay a politician to uphold the constitutuin to keep our freedom speech.


There is more offensive stuff on the local and national news than what comes out of sterns mouth. But i guess death and dismemberment is ok in our society and anything that has to do with sex is bad.....

they took stern off here too and it makes me nuts. like him or not, he ahs the RIGHT to broadcast. turn the fucking radio if you do not like what is on...

http://www.jeffsgals.com/a/bushler.jpg

I'm sure the gestopo will be round any minuet to confiscate my photoshop......hmmmm that might even be the next thing they ban.

Abortion will be the next big one they go after.... Bush is already setting the ground work with the new laci perterson law where if you kill a pregnant woman you are charged with 2 murders.....

Which is ok, but if they start saying that an unborn child is murdered when the mother is murdered then don't you think the next step is to say... "well, if lkilling a pregnant woman is 2 murders... abortion is 1 murder". I mean we all know bush's stance on abortion... even though he paid to have one done... (forget who and if it was his but i do remember he paid for it).

go to google, type in bush paid for abortion and a million links come up.

read about it and come to your own conclusions.

go to google and type "i was abducted by aliens" and a million links come up.

read about it and draw your own conclusions.

Hey now...

Fuck you!:1orglaugh

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

thank you for making my point; hence comming to your own conclusions :)

So what are you trying to say? You are for banning abortions? Do you really want to give up YOUR rights over your own body?

Hey, not saying I agree with abortion... but I do agree that a woman has the right to control her own body and not have someone tell her what she can and cannot do with it. :2 cents:

We are in the beggining stages of an all out war. A war on our freedom to determin what we want to see and hear. Shit a war for control of what we think, do and feel. Sounds overdramatic but that is where we are headed and it is up to us to fight this attack on our basic rights as humans to the bitter end. So please, even if you disagree with me, VOTE! it is so important.

exactly:thumbsup

If a congress got just 10,000 email you might see speak up.

where did that come into play?!?! if you have read any of my posts in abortion threads you would see i am adamently for the woman's right to choose! i dont let the average guy in my life tell me what i can and cannot do. i certainly will not let the govt decide what i will and will not do.

my point was, there isnt any concrete evidence. i have come to my own conclusions based on what i have read. for me to state my conclusions as fact based on somewhat circumstantial evidence would be ridiculous.

trying to read anything further into what i replied then what should be read is as ridiculous as me stating my opinion as fact.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

shame on you, bad bad girl.


















:winkwink:

No, was not reading anything into anything... was just wondering what you meant by that statement of do a search on google.....

Also, when you do these searches... look up the companies bush ran... see where they all are now... bankrupt... out of business... basically... he fucked evry business he ever had control of... Guess what... the country is just another company he failed to run properly and it too is being run into the shitter.
:winkwink:

Anyway... didn;t mean to offend... was just wondering what you meant by that comment... thanks for clearing that up. :thumbsup

:winkwink:

I dont see Stern out of business, I think he'll adjust before he actually leaves.
He's self serving that way.

Land of the Free (with some exceptions)
Home of the Brave (yet we dont fight against bullshit hard enough)

hmmmmmm :1orglaugh

you are right... he will go satalite... now I will have to pay for what I enjoyed free all these years... well such as life....

I hope he gets off E and goes to HBO... his E show is totally fucking stupid when he has to pixelate out the good stuff....

RATM baby
fuck yeah
fuck bush
fuck michael powell
fuck brownback who washes his employees feet
he's in kansas and doesn't GET STERN on the air
fuck him
he lives a fuckin subsidized house paid for by a religious group
this election is vote with your religion?
fuck this shit