Clear Channel gets Whacked $495K

[kc0ebm]

Here's the link: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040409/D81R0B280.html

Bababooie, Bababooie, Bababoo hoo hooie http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

Clear Channel to drop $495,000 into FCC coffers for Howie's bad boy behavior.

More fines in the works. FCC also considering license revocations.

We've been saying it for years, but now, even the Broadcasters agree.....Stern's a "LIABILITY!!!"

Stern says its a "Witch Hunt".

Take a good look at that moron and try to imagine him with a black pointy hat with a broom stuck between his knees and tell me what YOU see http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I rest my case. Witch hunt or no, pretty soon ole Bababooie's gunna have to go out and get a REAL job http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Wonder how the Howard Stern wannabe's on amateur radio are taking this?

Who's scoffing NOW! Who has no credibility NOW! Who's gunna be turning the VFO NOW!

Bababooie Bababooie Baba boo hoo hooie http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Go Riley GOOOOOOO!!!

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif that amount is " pocket change " for those folks...like a slap on the wrist.

Wait till the bill passes the US SEnate.. and then EACH station, the Network, and the DJ get ZAPPED!

Ahh, the howls of the stuck pigs.. music to the ears!

They pushed the envelope for years.. NOW the boundaries are being restored!

They cry.. they wail.. they gnash their teeth!

A SOUND AND FURY SIGNIFYING NOTHING! ME THINKS THEY PROTESTETH TOO MUCH!

Wm Shakespeare was one smart dude with his words!

K3FT

[KB9YCO]

"Clear Channel to drop $495,000 into FCC coffers for Howie's bad boy behavior."

'Bad boy behavior' as defined by a vocal minority of extremists and some hardcore religious wackos within the government. Behavior that the FCC still has yet to clearly determine guidlines for other than 'we think it's dirty'. Never has there been a graphic description of sex on Stern's show, but the way these uptight nitwits make it sound you'd think that's all the show is, what a joke and untrue besides.

"More fines in the works. FCC also considering license revocations."

More positive proof of suppression of what is supposed to be a FREE PRESS in America. Not only fines, but also revocation of licenses? Extreme religious conservative goosestepping at its finest, goosestepping right over The Bill Of Rights.

"We've been saying it for years, but now, even the Broadcasters agree.....Stern's a "LIABILITY!!!"
Stern says its a "Witch Hunt".

Now one company, with close ties with the Bush administration, is caving in to the pressure from their ultra conservative friends and FCC Nazi like suppression. This has nothing to do with Howard Stern individually, this has to do with the suppressing of unpopular speech by a religiously influenced government and a vocal minority of whiners that have a fascination with listening instead of turning the dial. If you truly think this has to do with penis and fart jokes you are seriously un-informed and obviously unaware of what is really being said on these shows.

"Take a good look at that moron and try to imagine him with a black pointy hat with a broom stuck between his knees and tell me what YOU see"

Take a good look in the mirror and try imagine yourself living in a country that claims to be fighting religious extremism overseas while they practice it right here.
Then try to imagine a country so out of control in a religious fervor that they blatantly contradict The Bill Of Rights and it obvious wording (Congress shall make NO LAW... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press) in order to justify their own agenda. Oh wait, you don't have to imagine that one, it's happening right now.

"Wonder how the Howard Stern wannabe's on amateur radio are taking this? Who's scoffing NOW! Who has no credibility NOW! Who's gunna be turning the VFO NOW!"

If you presume that people that are amateurs, and listeners of Howard Stern, are automatically offensive, rude, or any of your other obvious misconceptions about Howard, then you must subscribe to the world of generalizations. I don't operate rudely, nor do I go out of my way to push the envelope or be insensitive to other amateurs or potential listeners of amateur radio. Amateur radio is not comparable to broadcast radio, we have an agenda of promoting radio and the theory therein involved, not broadcasting.
If you now want credibility because some religious extremists are participating in, and endorsing via legislation, un-American activities like suppressing free speech, then I give you full credit. If these uptight elements of our society would've used their own VFO's, otherwise known as a TUNING KNOB, instead of sitting around obsessing over something they were never forced to listen to, then we probably wouldn't have to worry about these idiotic and backwards actions in the first place.
If you are also one of those that think this is the 'backlash' effect just wait until the real backlash kicks in and most of these backwards thinking extremist bible thumpers get voted out of office.
By the way, Howard Stern is not Bababooey, and Riley Hollingsworth is the FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement, nothing to do with broadcast radio. Have a nice day.

[WA5KRP]

Lowry and Mark Mays, with Red McCombs accompanying, are white hot pissed. I guess you could say they knew what was going on but just held their noses while going to the bank. The FCC's precipitous move to clean up public airwaves followed the outcry arising from CBS' Super Bowl half-time show.

Stern did nothing different to draw the fine........the FCC changed the rules of the enforcement game without notice. It seems reasonable to think that the FCC could have sent a memo to broadcasters warning they had ten days to modify program content based on redefined enforcement guidelines.

Well, THAT sure didn't happen. The FCC started bustin' balls SB Sunday+1. Hence, Clear Channel fat cats and investors, thanks to Janet Jackson, have their collective tit caught in the FCC ringer.



WA5KRP
Texas

[n3mvf]

Clear Channel certainly liked him pre-SB Sunday! Stern made them a lot of money. Agree that Stern didn't change, the playing field changed.

73
Greg

[K0YNE]

Who would want to protect Howie? He's a crude piece of trash on the airwaves and who needs to deal with his type of crap he airs everynight? It's just a piece of the puzzle that is leading to the moral deterioration of America. Good riddance to bad broadcasting. His show should be aired "scrambled" so that it can't be accidently seen by someone who is too young.
For those of you who find him entertaining, special subscriptions should apply. KØYNE have a nice day. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[w5klb]

Mr YCO has posted with:

"More positive proof of suppression of what is supposed to be a FREE PRESS in America. Not only fines, but also revocation of licenses? Extreme religious conservative goosestepping at its finest, goosestepping right over The Bill Of Rights."

Definition of Democracy: Freedom within limits.

This is the reason why we have speed limits, city ordinances, state and federal laws.

You may do whatever you like as long as it's doesn't impose on the rights of others and breaks the law.

The FCC should have been enforcing decentcy<sp> laws long before this. What a person does in private is his or her business as long as they don't break the law, but I don't need to know what they do. I don't need to see it on TV, or in a book, or on video, or in a magazine, or on a computer, or hear about it on the air. And our children don't need to see or hear it and idolize it either. IMHO this is the reason for having so much teen pregnacy-babies having babies and why we have so many crimes against women. Some think that this behavior is okay and it's not. What it all comes down to what is appropriate and good judgement. I beleave things like this should discussed in private.

This has nothing to do with "goose stepping" over the Bill of Rights. The feelings and concerns of others MUST be considered and a compromise reached. This is what Democracy is all about. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[KB9YCO]

"This is the reason why we have speed limits, city ordinances, state and federal laws."

Not at all the same as the concept of a free press. Apples and oranges.

"You may do whatever you like as long as it's doesn't impose on the rights of others and breaks the law."

The FCC and Congress forcing a minority view on the general public imposes on our rights. There is no provision in The Bill Of Rights that says unless some are offended, your right to be offended is not covered, sorry.

"What a person does in private is his or her business as long as they don't break the law, but I don't need to know what they do. I don't need to see it on TV, or in a book, or on video, or in a magazine, or on a computer, or hear about it on the air. And our children don't need to see or hear it and idolize it either."

You're right, you don't need to see it. If all the things you list are such a serious threat to you then you shouldn't participate in them, nor should you let our children. Stop asking the government to infringe on my rights by restricting access to a free press, stop asking them to watch your children for you and do it for yourself.
Besides, do you truly think a radio or television show is the reason there is teenage pregnancy and rape? How about the decline in education or economic strife and poverty?

"Some think that this behavior is okay and it's not. What it all comes down to what is appropriate and good judgement. I beleave things like this should discussed in private."

Not OK according to you? Appropriate or good judgement by who's standards? That is the reason for a free press, you determine that for yourself, its' not the government's job.
I think perhaps you've never even heard Howard Stern's show but have gone by what you've been told, just a guess. It's not graphic sex talk or dirty words, never has been regardless of what has been reported. What it is is politically unpopular speech, in an election year, with a narrow minded administration in office.
Have a nice day and good holiday weekend, 73.

Thankfully.. the pendulum has begun a well deserved swing BACK from the hard left and is going to once again, be moving to the right.

Stern is the MOST visible evidence ofthe problem. When dealing with aproblem.. you get rid of the MOST visible evidence.

THEN you go after the less visible.

Stern is like a puddle of dog droppings in the MIDDLE of the floor. FIRST you clean up the obvious, most visible, and most likely to cause a problem..

Then you go after the stuff under the chairs, behind the dresser, and staining the carpet.

So Long, Howie! Off to Satellite or cable you go where ThOSE WHO CHOOSE TO.. may glady pay for the pleasure of listening to you.

THE TRUE MEASURE OF HOW POPULAR HE IS.. will be gauged by HOW MANY People will CHOOSE to actually PUT UP their money to pay for the pleasure of his ENTERTAINMENT.

If they pay.. and it survives.. then he's right. IF they don't and he fails.. then

THE PROOF OF THE ARGUMENT IS IN THE RESULTS!

Ok Howie.. time to put your money where your mouth has long been. Step up to the plate.. err (satellite) and see what happens. No more free ride on the PUBLIC airwaves!

K3FT

[KB9YCO]

"Thankfully.. the pendulum has begun a well deserved swing BACK from the hard left and is going to once again, be moving to the right."

I can't wait to see how it swings back in the next election.

"So Long, Howie! Off to Satellite or cable you go where ThOSE WHO CHOOSE TO.. may glady pay for the pleasure of listening to you."

People CHOOSE to listen to broadcast radio as well, no one forces them to listen to Howard Stern or any other show. The PUBLIC AIRWAYS belong to the public and THEY make the decision to support it or ignore it, NOT THE GOVERNMENT OR A MINORITY OF EASILY OFFENDED PEOPLE.

The 'PUBLIC AIRWAVES' are given to a licensee who is REQUIRED to operate in the PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVIENENCE, and NECESSITY. (PICON)

This carries with it an IMPLICT and EXPLICT "RESPONSIBILITY" to keep in mind the GENERAL PUBLIC WELFARE when using a resource that they have been given a license to use.

THerefore, the licensees have a RESPONSIBILITY *UH OH! THERE's THE DREADED "R" word!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif to behave in a manner which upholds their agreement.

THEY HAVE NOT!

Therefore, the FCC performed its job and enforced the rules.

Therefore it is NOT just a few 'religious' folks. The greater majority of the public APPROVE of what the FCC is doing as evidenced bythe fact that Congress is changing the fines that may be levied and the methodology used to levy them.

That is the system and that is how it works.
AND IT WORKS.

YCO.. youare a member of the vocal minority on this issue and while your arguments are excellent for debate, the reality is that the changes are 'a'coming and the times they are a'chaning!

K3FT

[KG4CGC]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd5wpw @ April 08 2004,10:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The FCC should have been enforcing decentcy&lt;sp&gt; laws long before this. What a person does in private is his or her business as long as they don't break the law, but I don't need to know what they do. I don't need to see it on TV, or in a book, or on video, or in a magazine, or on a computer, or hear about it on the air. And our children don't need to see or hear it and idolize it either. IMHO this is the reason for having so much teen pregnacy-babies having babies and why we have so many crimes against women. Some think that this behavior is okay and it's not. What it all comes down to what is appropriate and good judgement. I beleave things like this should discussed in private.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
OK, Crimes against women and teen pregnancy have been around looooong before the invention of ANYTHING!
You can't blame the liberal media for that one. It is a process of human nature that causes crimes against women and teen pregnancy. How can I phrase this? Let's see, the dominant and the receptacle perhaps.
It's been this way from the begining however we all want to blame outside influences when we should look inward to see who is at fault.
Charles Chackal

[KG4CGC]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3FT @ April 08 2004,10:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the reality is that the changes are 'a'coming and the times they are a'chaning!

K3FT[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That phrase always angers the pro-code crowd when it is used to foretell the future of the code requirement.

[KB9YCO]

&quot;The 'PUBLIC AIRWAVES' are given to a licensee who is REQUIRED to operate in the PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVIENENCE, and NECESSITY...THerefore, the licensees have a RESPONSIBILITY... to behave in a manner which upholds their agreement. THEY HAVE NOT!&quot;

Your citing of other laws that are equally un-Constitutional does not help. What is being done is still wrong and was just as wrong when the FCC overstepped its bounds in the first place by getting involved in the content of a free press. The PUBLIC determines their interest, not the government or a bureaucracy like the FCC that doesn't even allow for due process, just what they want to deem indecent without any clear guidlines to go by.

&quot;The greater majority of the public APPROVE of what the FCC is doing as evidenced bythe fact that Congress is changing the fines that may be levied and the methodology used to levy them...That is the system and that is how it works.AND IT WORKS. YCO.. youare a member of the vocal minority on this issue and while your arguments are excellent for debate, the reality is that the changes are 'a'coming and the times they are a'chaning!&quot;

It's not a greater majority of the public, it is the whining cries of a few that then influence the FCC and Congress into doing their bidding for the sake of a more moralistic society.
Thanks for the lesson on how the system works, we're all aware of that, but time and time again, the same people voted in are voted right back out for not respecting the views of their constituents, or the public, or altogether ignoring the fundamentals of The Bill Of Rights. We can only hope that it happens again in November and these nitwits have to go back home. Many, many people are tired of an administration that allows their religion to seep like a cancer into the degredation of our rights.
Quote all the law and jargon you want to, what is happening is purely un-American. Try reading The First Amendment again.

Enjoy the weekend folks, happy holidays etc., see ya next week. In the meantime flame away! 73

[ky5u]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote (K3FT @ April 08 2004,10:37)
the reality is that the changes are 'a'coming and the times they are a'chaning!

And from our &quot;Technician Laureate&quot;: That phrase always angers the pro-code crowd when it is used to foretell the future of the code requirement.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You are alive, Charles, and making you dead is a change, right? # Is all change good now? # I think not. #You have value to your family, your friends, and to us here. #Making a rule that all people named Charles Chackal had to be put to sleep would be a bad rule. #Why? #If you answer that, then you know why &quot;change&quot; per se is not good. #And you know why the people who mindlessly profess change are, well, mindless...

[KG4CGC]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AG4YO @ April 08 2004,11:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote (K3FT @ April 08 2004,10:37)
the reality is that the changes are 'a'coming and the times they are a'chaning!

And from our &quot;Technician Lauriate&quot;: That phrase always angers the pro-code crowd when it is used to foretell the future of the code requirement.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You are alive, Charles, and making you dead is a change, right? # Is all change good now? # I think not. #You have value to your family, your friends, and to us here. #Making a rule that all people named Charles Chackal had to be put to sleep would be a bad rule. #Why? #If you answer that, then you know why &quot;change&quot; per se is not good. #And you know why the people who mindlessly profess change are, well, mindless...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
What you just said make not sense at all and you are just spouting jibberish. How bout' a big group hug you OLD PHART!
# Seems what you just posted is more like a personal attack, which you love to do. It seems to me that you want me dead. How can a person of such technical knowledge be such a horses arse? I AM A TECH! You got a problem with that then take it elsewhere. Techs will always be around. You are so full up on your own technical accoplishments that you lost your soul a long time ago.
# # # # # # # # #KG4CGC

[W2LYS]

While I'm not offended by 'ol Howie, I got to admit there's a time and a place for such things.

If you've got a couple guys sitting around the garage tossing back a cold ones and swapping dirty jokes, there's nothing wrong with a burp or a fart.

Now in the middle of a job interview... that's another story. Nor on the air...

And people who know me are surprised I've made it through my first five months on the air without any of George Carlin's favorite words slipping out...

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

73...

YCO... let me restate (again) ....

Your herring about the 1st amendment aside.

THE FOUNDATIONAL ISSUE (and I think it is NOT jargon.. but rather ESTABLISHED LAW IN FACT AND IN FORCE) is this.



1) Congress passes the Bills and the President signs them into law. They are, prima facie, considered CONSTITUIONAL until challenged AND overturned or superceded.

2) IF they are challenged in the Courts and the Courts rule them Unconstitutional, then they are unconstitutional (that's part of the 'checks and balances' BTW)

3) UNTIL that happens, the law is accepted as being constitutional UNTIL overriden by the Courts or CHANGED by Congress, itself.

Therefore, your comments are valid ONLY as they relate to your OPINION.

According to the law, what the FCC does, under its AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS charter, IS Constitutional until

OVERTURNED by the Courts (OR)
CONGRESS passes a new law which changes it.

That settles any debate as to the facts of the case.

All the rest is just personal debate and desires.

K3FT

YCO is angry and upset at the application of the law because it seems (to him) be an unreasonable application of law in an area that he feels is wrong. That's OK.

BUT the facts adn evidence CLEARLY point to the truth of the matter. What the FCC and CONGRESS do IS.. defacto.. CONSTITUIONAL until they change it - either by Court ruling or law change.

All the protestations about needing to change the political structure are fine. BUT.. please don't wrap yourself int he Constitution to support your points. It's just not going work when the law and facts say otherwise.

I shall deal no more with this. It has reached the stage of 'going round the same ground again.. and agian.. and again'.

[ky5u]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Seems what you just posted is more like a personal attack, which you love to do. It seems to me that you want me dead. How can a person of such technical knowledge be such a horses arse? I AM A TECH! You got a problem with that then take it elsewhere. Techs will always be around. You are so full up on your own technical accoplishments that you lost your soul a long time ago.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>


No I do not want anything to happen to you. You are my smoochie pie pal! #Go back and read it again. And, I have no issue with your license class, you seem to be very sensitive about that. What's up with that?

I apologize if my example was extreme, but I thought you might understand a more black and white example of all change not being a good thing. #

I will edit my message to make it clearer.

[KG4CGC]

Let me just apologize to everyone else on the forum. Seems that I struck a nerve with Charlie Young back in September and something about me is just stuck in his craw. Just let it go Mr. Young. I hold no animosity towards you.
It's all fun and games till someone loses an eye.
Charles Chackal

[ky5u]

Charles,

I don't have any ax to grind with you. I post as often as I can when I see someone saying that we should support change per se. It is such a dumb assertion that I get carried away somtimes. Sorry if your eye got poked out in this one.

If there is anything else, you obviouosly have a better memory than I do.

[KG4CGC]

So, is Stern going to be looking for a new job? I never really cared for his specific flavor of humor but I was a Don and Mike fan for 2 and a half years (98.1FM) till the locals pulled them off the air and they were far worse than Stern. A station manager in Simpsonville tried to get them back on the air on 1600AM but it didn't fly for too long. Local community standards applied in both cases.
By the way, the reason we did get Don and Mike was part of a compromise deal to keep Howard Stern off of the Greenville SC airwaves.
KG4CGC, Charles C.

[w5klb]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB9YCO @ April 09 2004,09:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">&quot;This is the reason why we have speed limits, city ordinances, state and federal laws.&quot;

Not at all the same as the concept of a free press. Apples and oranges.

&quot;You may do whatever you like as long as it's doesn't impose on the rights of others and breaks the law.&quot;

The FCC and Congress forcing a minority view on the general public imposes on our rights. There is no provision in The Bill Of Rights that says unless some are offended, your right to be offended is not covered, sorry.

&quot;What a person does in private is his or her business as long as they don't break the law, but I don't need to know what they do. I don't need to see it on TV, or in a book, or on video, or in a magazine, or on a computer, or hear about it on the air. And our children don't need to see or hear it and idolize it either.&quot;

You're right, you don't need to see it. If all the things you list are such a serious threat to you then you shouldn't participate in them, nor should you let our children. Stop asking the government to infringe on my rights by restricting access to a free press, stop asking them to watch your children for you and do it for yourself.
Besides, do you truly think a radio or television show is the reason there is teenage pregnancy and rape? How about the decline in education or economic strife and poverty?

&quot;Some think that this behavior is okay and it's not. What it all comes down to what is appropriate and good judgement. I beleave things like this should discussed in private.&quot;

Not OK according to you? Appropriate or good judgement by who's standards? That is the reason for a free press, you determine that for yourself, its' not the government's job.
I think perhaps you've never even heard Howard Stern's show but have gone by what you've been told, just a guess. It's not graphic sex talk or dirty words, never has been regardless of what has been reported. What it is is politically unpopular speech, in an election year, with a narrow minded administration in office.
Have a nice day and good holiday weekend, 73.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

FREEDOM IS FREE AS LONG AS YOU DONT INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. (Civics 101, class dismissed)

We have laws that are suppost protect these rights or would you prefer anarchy and turn our hobby into the Chicken Band? Is that a big tain fer?

There are others that feel that people like Mr. Stern are infringing upon their rights to listen to radio without hearing about &quot;private parts&quot;. And it is getting harder and harder to change a station, read a magazine or a newpaper that doesn't have this sort of smut in some form in it. Now what would you have us do-stop reading a paper, stop listening to TV, maybe you are thinking that we don't have any rights whatsoever and you would like for us to just go away and have no voice period? Democracy does NOT work that way.

And no, I don't think that it's the primary cause for teen pregnacy and crimes against women. But I do think that it contributes greatly to the problem. #

We are talking about the same thing. FREEDOM of the Press is an important aspect of our society just like Democracy: FREEDOM within Limits.

Thanks for the fruit basket. I enjoy apples and oranges! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

I got to study for my upgrade. I'm clear and QRT-ooops!-I'm mean-tain seven.

[K0RGR]

What little I've seen of Stern has not made a positive impression. We don't get his radio show here, but we do see his cable TV program. I have never watched more than 10 minutes' worth.

I'm very suspicious when the government goes after anybody in public life who is criticizing our president (Osama Bin Laden and associates excluded). I heard Mr. Bush warn us that &quot;...there are consequences...&quot; to our public speech, when Clear Channel went after the Dixie Chicks last year, instead of defending their right to express their opinion, as most occupants of the White House have done.

We had a program on the air before 6 a.m. here as recently as last fall that was disgustingly sexually explicit - I complained because this program was played over the loudspeakers during my teen daughter's early morning skating lessons. Some of their material was funny, but all of it was dirty and demeaning to women. As far as I know it is still on the air. I believe that station is also owned by Clear Channel. If Stern's radio show was no worse than his cable TV show, it was not nearly as offensive as this other thing. Maybe that one will be in tomorrow's news. I can only hope.

But, we do need to be very careful to differentiate between political speech and verbal pornography. Are there any Stern fans out there that can clarify the situation? Was Howie trying to agitate our prurient interests, or was he merely calling the president dirty words?

[KC2HJN]

The problem is that people in this country seem to not want to see how our country is changing and how our government is regurarly trampling the constitution.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Definition of Democracy: Freedom within limits[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

No, wrong. Democracy means majority rules.
Here is the official definition as issued by the US War Dept. in 1951

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">CITIZENSHIP Democracy:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of &quot;direct&quot; expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The US is NOT a democracy as the president keeps saying. You would think he (and most americans) would know the difference. The US is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

We have a constitution for a reason. It is mostly gone now, but most are too blind to actually see what's going on. They always cry for the government to &quot;do something&quot;. Unfortunately, what they do is usually wrong.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Congress passes the Bills and the President signs them into law. They are, prima facie, considered CONSTITUIONAL until challenged AND overturned or superceded.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Considered is the word in question here. When the law is challenged and found unconstitutional, it is thought to have never existed.

If Bush signed a law tomorrow that stated all newspaper articles must be approved by the government before being printed, it would be on the books as a law, but would still be unconstitutional and therefore void. You as an american citizen protected by the constitution would be under no obligation to obey that law. Sure you could still be arrested, but that still dosen't make it a constitutional law. It's a complicated subject.

There are some supporters of the current administration who will never see the wrong they do. They follow party lines and use words such as liberal, tree hugger, and other such words because they hear people like Rush and Hannity use them. If you open your eyes and actually think for yourself instead of listening to the political propaganda spewed from both sides you can only come to the conclusion that BOTH sides are full of crap and we are in trouble. Both sides blame each other for the countrys problems, when in reality they are both at fault.

What it comes down to is clear channel is a BIG supporter of the republican party and of Bush. They had no problem with him (even recently renewed his contract) UNTIL he started talking bad about Bush. Suddenly he is too indecent for them and he gets booted. It sounds fishy to me.

[ad4mg]

Break out the &quot;bubbly&quot; and celebrate a small minority's victory over Freedom of Speech. #Long live King George and the Evil Oil Empire! Save a little bubbly though, King George will make cheap internet available for all real soon, and you can drink to the demise of amateur radio (can you spell BPL ?).

What a bunch of wacko's.

Pardon me while I choke to death on the values of others being shoved down my throat.

BTW - didn't care for Howard ... school yard humor at best, but this administration and its wacko followers are full steam ahead and damn anyone in their way. #Very dangerous.

Flame on, I can take it.

[KB9YCO]

“YCO is angry and upset at the application of the law because it seems (to him) be an unreasonable application of law in an area that he feels is wrong. #That's OK. BUT the facts adn evidence CLEARLY point to the truth of the matter. #What the FCC and CONGRESS do IS.. defacto.. CONSTITUIONAL until they change it - either by Court ruling or law change.” K3FT

Not upset, just disappointed as an American. You may be surprised but I agree with you with how the system works, the only problem is that doesn’t mean what they’re doing isn’t still fundamentally un-Constitutional. As KC2HJN wisely pointed out, just because a law has been passed doesn’t mean it’s actually Constitutional. I agree with you when you say that’s how the system works, but is that truly a good thing that we have legislation that is in direct opposition to our core system, namely The Bill Of Rights?

“I shall deal no more with this. It has reached the stage of 'going round the same ground again.. and agian.. and again'.” #K3FT

Here I may be inclined to agree with you again, you have your concept of liberty and I have mine. I just feel that this is an important issue and that any discussion about the importance of The Bill Of Rights is positive, regardless of whether we may agree or not.

“FREEDOM IS FREE AS LONG AS YOU DONT INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. (Civics 101, class dismissed)… We have laws that are suppost protect these rights or would you prefer anarchy and turn our hobby into the Chicken Band? Is that a big tain fer?” KD5WPW

You characterization of me automatically being a Cber or a supporter of the degradation of the amateur service is inaccurate. I have never subscribed to the amateur test getting easier or not reflecting the knowledge all amateurs should have. I’m not even really sure what that has to do with the issue in question here.
My point is Howard Stern or myself are not infringing on your rights, as the Constitution doesn’t cover your right to not be offended by what you see or hear. YOU make the choice of what you wish to see, hear or support; it’s not forced upon you by anyone.

“There are others that feel that people like Mr. Stern are infringing upon their rights to listen to radio without hearing about &quot;private parts&quot;. And it is getting harder and harder to change a station, read a magazine or a newpaper that doesn't have this sort of smut in some form in it. Now what would you have us do-stop reading a paper, stop listening to TV, maybe you are thinking that we don't have any rights whatsoever and you would like for us to just go away and have no voice period? Democracy does NOT work that way.” KD5WPW

Of course you have rights, the same rights I have as an American; and a voice, it’s called voting and your right to protest and be heard. Within those rights nowhere does it say that you have the right to not be offended. If indeed these things so easily offend you then I guess the only choice you would have would be to not participate in it. Or here’s a crazy idea, change the channel and monitor your kids instead of asking the government to do it for you. Democracy does work that way, at least it’s supposed to in America. If you don’t like what you see or hear no one if forcing you to listen or watch. Besides, this idea that Stern's show is graphic sexually is just absurd and inaccurate.

“But, we do need to be very careful to differentiate between political speech and verbal pornography. #Are there any Stern fans out there that can clarify the situation? Was Howie trying to agitate our prurient interests, or was he merely calling the president dirty words?” K0RGR

I have listened to Howard Stern since he’s been on the same station as Steve Dahl (the originator of freeform radio that doesn’t get the credit) in Chicago and I have never heard a graphic description of a sex act on either show. (Steve was the first to refuse, via his company, to pay a forfeiture to the FCC and challenge the Constitutionality of the FCC’s actions; ultimately Steve and company won) #As a matter or fact, the two incidents from Howard’s show that are in question were rife with double entendre and satire and certainly much less dirty then the Oprah show that is currently being compared with Howard’s show.
As far as President Bush goes, believe or not, Howard Stern supported his actions after September 11th and the war in Iraq. He even helped two New England Republican senators to be elected by his support and was then praised and thanked for his efforts; Christie Todd Whitman even had a rest area named after Howard Stern.
Recently Howard has taken issue with the Bush administration and their obvious religious agenda and lack of separating church and state. Suddenly after all these years, and millions of dollars of revenue, Clear Channel finds Howard obscene. No particulars given by either Clear Channel or the FCC, but suddenly the show is no longer socially acceptable? And on top of that, there is FCC enforcement on incidences that occurred BEFORE the laws were made? Clear Channel has close ties to the Bush administration and the GOP, seems rather coincidental don’t you think?

Enough ranting, this post was too long even for me; hopefully it answers anything I’ve been asked or clearly states my perspective.
As always, many thanks go to all at QRZ for providing us with this site and forum; there really is no better site for people sharing a common interest anywhere on the internet. I hope everyone has a good holiday weekend. 73

[W3MIV]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC2HJN @ April 09 2004,18:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...Both sides blame each other for the countrys problems, when in reality they are both at fault....[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Too facile. They are not at fault: WE are at fault, for all of them are freely elected.

The descent began as soon as folks saw that in our system they could vote themselves largesse, and the pols saw instantly that giving them whatever they want is the key to eternal incumbency.

Mencken once put forth a plan for all members of Congress to be drafted to serve ONE term and never be able to seek office again. Lottery selection, purely random: instead of a bunch of lawyers and professional hacks, you would have bums and boosters, carpenters and doctors and lawyers and auto mechanics and even CBers all serving together to make the laws that they would then have to live with forever after.

Think about it.

[K3XR]

What Stern gets, he deserves, clearly, he is a low life and you have to wonder about the people who listen to him on a regular basis. #Clear Channel only carried Stern on a very few stations ( I recall 6 or so). #This is not a free speech issue. #Stern is free to shoot off his potty mouth all he wants. #The people, represented by our elected and appointed officials, have a right to set standards as to what is said (or shown) on the airwaves that belong to them. #Clear Channel did not go after the Dixie Chics. #They were taken off the air after Clear Channel was flooded with calls from the listening public, who were outraged at the comments made by them (or a member of the group). #If you think the policy was the result of a very vocal minority, you should have no problem reversing it as an even smaller vocal minority.
DAN, K3XR

[KB9YCO]

&quot;What Stern gets, he deserves, clearly, he is a low life and you have to wonder about the people who listen to him on a regular basis.&quot;

So by that virtue it is your opinion that all the people listening to a certain show are of the same &quot;ilk&quot; shall we say? Interesting; inaccurate, stereotypical, and presumptious, but interesting either way. It certainly says something about your view of reality; to each their own I guess. I suppose I should assume all those people that swallow Fox News and Rush 'high as a kite' Limbaugh as news or quality talk are all non-thinking, party line towing, extremists; good thing I know better and don't subscribe to ignorant generalizations.

&quot;Stern is free to shoot off his potty mouth all he wants. The people, represented by our elected and appointed officials, have a right to set standards as to what is said (or shown) on the airwaves that belong to them.&quot;

The Bill Of Rights says otherwise; the airwaves, and broadcast radio being PART OF THE PRESS, belong to the people and it is their choice to make, not the government. Regardless of what laws some extremist control freaks have forced though that blatantly trample The Bill Of Rights, what the FCC and Congress are doing is not only in direct opposition to The First Amendment, it is fundamentally un-American.
That's just a fact regardless of what your opinion of it is.

&quot;Clear Channel only carried Stern on a very few stations (I recall 6 or so). This is not a free speech issue... Clear Channel did not go after the Dixie Chics. They were taken off the air after Clear Channel was flooded with calls from the listening public, who were outraged at the comments made by them (or a member of the group). If you think the policy was the result of a very vocal minority, you should have no problem reversing it as an even smaller vocal minority.&quot;

More people called about the Dixie &copy;Hicks thing than ever called about Howard Stern. Most of this un-American censorship activity started as a result of ONE person's complaint!
You are correct that any company can decide what is in their best interests, the only problem is this is a matter of governmental pressure in the form of sanctioned racketeering, i.e. fines, potential license revocation, hassles with licensing new stations and therefore affecting their business. That makes it a free speech issue.
Think what you want about Howard Stern (or his fans, like any of us care anyhow) there has never been anything approaching pornography or stimulating prurient interest; just satire and double entendre. And, in this particular case, politically unpopular talk, at least with the current administration, that may influence a large listening public against them. Clear Channel didn't seem to mind Howard for all these years, and millions of dollars of revenue, until governmental pressure set in as a result of talk against current administration. Also, they are closely connected to the GOP and have an agenda of their own, which is their perogative I guess. It's just not the government's place to make, or force, that decision upon them.

Have a good holiday weekend, see all you wacky kids next week.
73 - Brett - KB9YCO

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ...so now that Mr. Stern is gone, who is next ?
Jerry Springer
Orpah
Dr. Phil
your local tv news crew

[W3MIV]

Can I vote for &quot;all of the above?&quot;

[N0KLT]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ai4ep @ April 10 2004,17:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ...so now that Mr. Stern is gone, who is next ?
Jerry Springer
Orpah
Dr. Phil
your local tv news crew[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Would that only be true. The sooner the better, and include Maury, Montel and Geraldo. PLEASE!!!!!!!!

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif What is the time frame on T V soap opera s between when the show is filmed, spliced together and you actually SEE it on-the-air ? Do they do the entire weeks shows all in one day or is it a day-to-day event ?

[k5rna]

I am serious.Who is Howard Stern.

[KC2HJN]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W3MIV @ April 10 2004,10:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC2HJN @ April 09 2004,18:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...Both sides blame each other for the countrys problems, when in reality they are both at fault....[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Too facile. They are not at fault: WE are at fault, for all of them are freely elected.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No, it is their fault. If they say they will do certain things if elected, and then don't do them, what can we do? When any action is taken (a lawsuit, or any legal action) to make them do as they promised, it is dragged out for years in the courts. The judges are NOT impartial, the lawyers for the government have almost unlimited funds and we the people are the ones who get shafted.
Elections don't mean anything if your only choices are two idiots.

For those that don't like Stern, thats fine. Heres another example of our first ammendment rights being eroded.

Before the war in Iraq started I'm sure you all remember the millions of people protesting around the world. Did you notice that almost all coverage was of foreign protests? I live in NYC and before the war there was a protest that had approx. 500,000 marching through manhattan. NONE of the local channels covered it. It was hardly even mentioned except for a brief (maybe 15 sec.) spot on the nightly news.

Where is our free press?

During presidential visits, protestors were restricted to &quot;free speech zones&quot; almost always far enough away that the president couldn't even SEE them, much less hear their protests. This was not for security reasons, as supporters were able to get close to the president to make for good camera shots and publicity. Protestors who left these zones and refused to go back were arrested.

I don't know about all of you, but as far as I'm concerned, the WHOLE UNITED STATES is a free speech zone.

There are more examples of this kind of thing happening every day but you have to look for the info because your local news sure isn't going to inform you of it. Their too concerned with idiotic stories like Michael Jackson and such.

Anyway, I think I've strayed from my original topic so I'll wish you all a good night.

73

[KC7HDE]

I would have to say Whack 'em again.


73
Norm. T.

[KA9VQF]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k5rna @ April 10 2004,20:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am serious.Who is Howard Stern.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Go rent
Private parts
then you'll know
KA9VQF

[k5rna]

VQF.Thanks,but from what you said think i will pass.Have a feeling i am better off not knowing.

[KA9VQF]

Your probably right. I personally can't stand the guy. he used to be a disk jockey in St. Louis or maybe New Orleans I forget which these days, but he was never a very good one kept letting 'dead air' happen while he was trying to hustle the little girls that were hanging around the place. So he got fired then tried to sue the management. It was a really long time ago but my little sister used to listen to the station he was on back then.
She said he sucked then.

[W3MIV]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KA9VQF @ April 11 2004,01:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k5rna @ April 10 2004,20:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am serious.Who is Howard Stern.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Go rent
Private parts
then you'll know
KA9VQF[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Renting private parts is illegal in every state
'cept Nevada, I think. Wouldn't it make me a &quot;john?&quot;

[W3MIV]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC2HJN @ April 10 2004,21:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, it is their fault. If they say they will do certain things if elected, and then don't do them, what can we do? ......

Anyway, I think I've strayed from my original topic so I'll wish you all a good night.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If it is not true, then why is nearly every bozo in the Congress a long-term incumbent? The validation of your thesis would be far more new faces than old asses (I here hasten to insert that this term is used as denoting any of a number of horselike perissodactylous mammals, and not the vulgar slang for a particular bit of anatomy, however apt that may be).

And fret not, for deviating from the original intent of the thread seems to be an honored trait hereabouts—with practice, I suspect one could do it many times in a single post.

[KC2HJN]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W3MIV @ April 11 2004,04:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC2HJN @ April 10 2004,21:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, it is their fault. If they say they will do certain things if elected, and then don't do them, what can we do? ......

[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If it is not true, then why is nearly every bozo in the Congress a long-term incumbent?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yeah, your probably right on that one, but like I asked....when your only choices are bozos like you pointed out, what options do we have? When the government fails the American people, what do you suggest. We can keep voting for those bozos, or..... well I don't know. The other options aren't really options.

[W3MIV]

Alas, HJN, I fear there is no solution to the mess at this point. All too many folks have become single-issue voters, and too many refuse to really look at a candidate (for any office) closely and objectively.
Take the illustrious Mr Kerry, now offering himself so nobly for the highest office of the land. Hero? No hero would resort to the shabby political charade of throwing his medals away, thus cheapening the sacrifices of all who have gone before him.
He now rants about all the jobs that have left and are leaving the US. Why does no one ask this illustrious patriot where HJ Heinz has the vast bulk of their operations? If elected, will Heinz bring all of THOSE jobs back to the US?
It is like those poor, benighted fools who continue to support the Democrats because of their humanist, secularist policies. Why do they not ask us where those policies have gotten us over the past sixty years?
Once the people found out they could vote themselves any level of largesse they chose, the pols climbed aboard and have been willing to turn the needed tricks necessary to be re-elected. It has been going on at least since the Civil War, and probably before, but not so blatantly nor so thoroughly. [edit add: Remember Andrew Jackson, well before the CW, was a Democrat, and his noble motto: &quot;To the victor belong the spoils.&quot;]
What can you do? Pick the lesser of the two evils and vote for that candidate. If he or she loses, don't give up the ship, just find another and keep butting your head into the wall.
Bush, poor fellow, is trying to do the right thing, but is being misled into believing he can attain re-election by out-Democratting the Democrats.
[sfx: applause and raucous cheering]
Thank you, thank you. I go now to prepare an Easter dinner for my family and friends. Not merely to rush off before the arrival of the flames, rotten eggs and tomatoes.
ciao!