Howard Stern fans - O the sweet irony

[episodic]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/23/105423.shtml?s=tn

I actually find this apalling if true. I mean, now they are going to regulate subscription stuff? How about just telling all the parents with all the children that everyone is trying to protect to protect their own kids and leave me alone.

 

[EatSpam]

The RRR folks around here should be thrilled. After all, if its not acceptable to the RRR folks, then no one should be allowed to see it or hear it!

 

[DickFnTracy]

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/23/105423.shtml?s=tn

I actually find this apalling if true. I mean, now they are going to regulate subscription stuff? How about just telling all the parents with all the children that everyone is trying to protect to protect their own kids and leave me alone.

Did you read who was going to do the "censoring"? Sirius, the company he works for, who has every right to control what goes out over their name.

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: DickFnTracy

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/23/105423.shtml?s=tn

I actually find this apalling if true. I mean, now they are going to regulate subscription stuff? How about just telling all the parents with all the children that everyone is trying to protect to protect their own kids and leave me alone.

Did you read who was going to do the "censoring"? Sirius, the company he works for, who has every right to control what goes out over their name.

Did you read who was pressuring the private company to do the censoring? Yea, the feds. Now show me where in the constitution speech is an activity that should cause a governmental body to try to regulate commerce?

 

[DickFnTracy]

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: DickFnTracy

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/23/105423.shtml?s=tn

I actually find this apalling if true. I mean, now they are going to regulate subscription stuff? How about just telling all the parents with all the children that everyone is trying to protect to protect their own kids and leave me alone.

Did you read who was going to do the "censoring"? Sirius, the company he works for, who has every right to control what goes out over their name.

Did you read who was pressuring the private company to do the censoring? Yea, the feds. Now show me where in the constitution speech is an activity that should cause a governmental body to try to regulate commerce?

No why don't you point out where in the article it says the feds are pressuring private companies to censor themselves.

 

[Train]

Purely publicity.

Sirius will "fake" censor Stern, so that he can fake "stick it to the man" because that's what made him cool in the first place, and he will die without his gimmicks.

 

[KidViciou$]

howard addressed this on the radio first thing this morning. there is NO movement to censor howard at sirius, this is just clear channel and the government beating their chest because it's unconstitutional for them to poke their nose into pay services

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: DickFnTracy

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: DickFnTracy

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/23/105423.shtml?s=tn

I actually find this apalling if true. I mean, now they are going to regulate subscription stuff? How about just telling all the parents with all the children that everyone is trying to protect to protect their own kids and leave me alone.

Did you read who was going to do the "censoring"? Sirius, the company he works for, who has every right to control what goes out over their name.

Did you read who was pressuring the private company to do the censoring? Yea, the feds. Now show me where in the constitution speech is an activity that should cause a governmental body to try to regulate commerce?

No why don't you point out where in the article it says the feds are pressuring private companies to censor themselves.

Quoted from the page:
Sirius? move to impose boundaries on Stern comes as pressure continues to mount in Congress to regulate programming on cable and satellite radio and TV.

 

[tommywishbone]

Originally posted by: Train
Purely publicity.

Sirius will "fake" censor Stern, so that he can fake "stick it to the man" because that's what made him cool in the first place, and he will die without his gimmicks.

Ding Ding Ding... we have a winner!😀

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: DickFnTracy

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: DickFnTracy

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/23/105423.shtml?s=tn

I actually find this apalling if true. I mean, now they are going to regulate subscription stuff? How about just telling all the parents with all the children that everyone is trying to protect to protect their own kids and leave me alone.

Did you read who was going to do the "censoring"? Sirius, the company he works for, who has every right to control what goes out over their name.

Did you read who was pressuring the private company to do the censoring? Yea, the feds. Now show me where in the constitution speech is an activity that should cause a governmental body to try to regulate commerce?

No why don't you point out where in the article it says the feds are pressuring private companies to censor themselves.

Quoted from the page:
Sirius? move to impose boundaries on Stern comes as pressure continues to mount in Congress to regulate programming on cable and satellite radio and TV.

That so-called pressure has been building in congress since the Big Three (Now six I guess...) OTA broadcast networks realized that their market share was being eroded by a bazillion other channels. The NAB has been lobbying congress to put restrictions on cable content for decades. Now you have the radio guys trying to do the same thing... for pretty much the same reasons. It won't work.

If it comes into your house over the free airwaves... it has to serve some sort of public interest and therefore is reglualted by the FCC. If you are paying for the content, then it is a product and the first ammendment kicks in.

Much ado about nothing.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: DickFnTracy

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: DickFnTracy

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/23/105423.shtml?s=tn

I actually find this apalling if true. I mean, now they are going to regulate subscription stuff? How about just telling all the parents with all the children that everyone is trying to protect to protect their own kids and leave me alone.

Did you read who was going to do the "censoring"? Sirius, the company he works for, who has every right to control what goes out over their name.

Did you read who was pressuring the private company to do the censoring? Yea, the feds. Now show me where in the constitution speech is an activity that should cause a governmental body to try to regulate commerce?

No why don't you point out where in the article it says the feds are pressuring private companies to censor themselves.

Quoted from the page:
Sirius? move to impose boundaries on Stern comes as pressure continues to mount in Congress to regulate programming on cable and satellite radio and TV.

That so-called pressure has been building in congress since the Big Three (Now six I guess...) OTA broadcast networks realized that their market share was being eroded by a bazillion other channels. The NAB has been lobbying congress to put restrictions on cable content for decades. Now you have the radio guys trying to do the same thing... for pretty much the same reasons. It won't work.

If it comes into your house over the free airwaves... it has to serve some sort of public interest and therefore is reglualted by the FCC. If you are paying for the content, then it is a product and the first ammendment kicks in.

Much ado about nothing.

Do not, however, be surprised at attempts by the government via the FCC to assume the right to regulate such content.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The George Takei guest spot of their first week is the funniest stuff Stern has done in 10 years...I hope they don't ruin a good thing, and just let Stern fans enjoy what they are paying for.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
The RRR folks around here should be thrilled. After all, if its not acceptable to the RRR folks, then no one should be allowed to see it or hear it!

Are the Democrats going to lose again in 06 and 08?

Yep, looks that way.

Lets all thank EatSpam and others for the Republican gains and Demoncat losses.

 

[tec699]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: EatSpam
The RRR folks around here should be thrilled. After all, if its not acceptable to the RRR folks, then no one should be allowed to see it or hear it!

Are the Democrats going to lose again in 06 and 08?

Yep, looks that way.

Lets all thank EatSpam and others for the Republican gains and Demoncat losses.

:|

 

[AragornTK]

Ok, where can I get the anarchist cook book?

 

[Red Dawn]

This is 100% bullsh!t. The only guidlines Sirius has imposed on Stern has to do with legal issues such as Libel. On the other hand Stern has imposed his own restrictions thus the delay button, again for legal issues. If you were to listen to his show you'd know there is no censorship. He doesn't use the so called 7 words just for the sake of using them.

This story was first posted on the NY Post and then followed up by Fox who is also owned by the same company that owns the Post. Is it any surprise that those so called News Agencies which are in the back pocket of the Religious Right would create such a non story? I mean come on, who on Fox is making such a big deal about it? John Gibson, the idiot who wrote a book about how Christmas is under attack by the Left?:roll:

 

[engineereeyore]

Yeah, I don't understand why people can't just "change the channel". Fascinating concept, I know. Requires a great deal of effort.

Personally, I can't stand Howard Stern. I can't stand rated R movies. I can't stand senseless violence, nudity, pornography, and crude language. But you know what, I have a remote control or a tuning knob. I can understand a being upset when these things come on regular public networks, but otherwise, learn to change the channel.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Yeah, I don't understand why people can't just "change the channel". Fascinating concept, I know. Requires a great deal of effort.

Personally, I can't stand Howard Stern. I can't stand rated R movies. I can't stand senseless violence, nudity, pornography, and crude language. But you know what, I have a remote control or a tuning knob. I can understand a being upset when these things come on regular public networks, but otherwise, learn to change the channel.

On top of that, who is anyone to tell me who pays money for the service to tell me what I can and cannot listen too?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
The RRR folks around here should be thrilled. After all, if its not acceptable to the RRR folks, then no one should be allowed to see it or hear it!

Who was it who was up in arms over the GTA Hot Coffee incident? None other than Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: EatSpam
The RRR folks around here should be thrilled. After all, if its not acceptable to the RRR folks, then no one should be allowed to see it or hear it!

Who was it who was up in arms over the GTA Hot Coffee incident? None other than Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton.

I'm not aware of that situation, is it comparable to the RR and the Clear Channel Lackeys trying to infringe on our first amendment rights?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Are the Democrats going to lose again in 06 and 08?

Yep, looks that way.

Lets all thank EatSpam and others for the Republican gains and Demoncat losses.

"Demoncats"? You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for your stupid partisan invective. Are you 100% happy with the way the Republican party is being run at the moment?

As for the topic at hand, I don't buy it at all. The NY Post, and its sister outlet Fox News are just trying to undermine Howard (while, ironically, giving him free publicity). Nothing to see here . . .

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone

Originally posted by: Train
Purely publicity.

Sirius will "fake" censor Stern, so that he can fake "stick it to the man" because that's what made him cool in the first place, and he will die without his gimmicks.

Ding Ding Ding... we have a winner!😀

Ding Ding Ding! Suckers duped by Fox and Murdoch again!

This is a made up story, and really quite illogical. Why would Stern try to attract fans to pay for his show by faking censorship and making the show lame just so he can be a martyr? How long would those fans continue to pay for a show that was the exact same blandness they could get on "free" radio?

More likely, this is a stunt by rabid free-speech hating Stern opponents to desseminate fear of censorship to try and slow excitement and the rush of new subcribers to Sirius, as they've lost the ability to control and limit him through the FCC. I'm sure the American Taliban won't give up until they find some other way to limit what he can do and save the poor defenseless listeners from him.

Edit: BTW, how that search for WMDs going that Fox news was so hot on the trail of? A+ reporting.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: EatSpam
The RRR folks around here should be thrilled. After all, if its not acceptable to the RRR folks, then no one should be allowed to see it or hear it!

Who was it who was up in arms over the GTA Hot Coffee incident? None other than Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton.

I'm not aware of that situation, is it comparable to the RR and the Clear Channel Lackeys trying to infringe on our first amendment rights?

Yep.

Text

 

[Bitek]

George W. Lieberman has always been a douchebag and trying to enforce limits and censorship and Hollywood, music industry and whomever; same with Tipper Gore. They are the #1 reason I didn't vote for Gore in 00'.

Hillary is just as disappointing, but not unexpected as she's (and Lieberdouche) have made a beeline to the Right most parts of the Democratic party/ social moderates.

Quoting the most socially conservative parts of the Left hardly represents a general view of the leftist viewpoint.


Edit:

Neil Cavuto later calls into the show and had to admit what a sh1tty job his report was. The source he interviewed as a "howard expert" was a former disgruntled whackpacker (with a penchant for self anal penentration over internet radio..); the fact the Howard has a dump button is not new, HE is in control of it, and he has always had one for self protection, and admitted to such while he was still at KROCK. The only thing that has changed is that he is back in control of it, not management like the last few years at KROCK. There are no talks at Sirius about a "code of conduct," and any would be vigorously faught.
Every single fact was wrong. Keep swinging at missing.

 

[broon]

IF this is real, I don't see it as being any different than E! or MTV or any other cable/satellite broadcast channel being censored. The only channels not censored are movie channels. Eventually satellite radio will be censored and you'll have to pay more to get premium uncensored channels. Stern will then move to one of those.