Bush Administration Censors Howard Stern

[alevok]

I don't listen to Howard Stern but he has the right to be offensive and we have the right to change the channel. I don't want someone making the decision for me.

well said Carlos

[floyd_turbo]

lets not forget one key important thing in this entire debate.... american society has and will always be run by an elite few. these few impose their beliefs on society regardless

[floyd_turbo]

sure it's easy as turning the channel and not listening but what about those people who act and believe such things people like stern say

[Carlos_E]

sure it's easy as turning the channel and not listening but what about those people who act and believe such things people like stern say

Who cares. People that dumb wouldn't know how to turn on a radio.

[floyd_turbo]

Who cares. People that dumb wouldn't know how to turn on a radio.

who cares, are you kidding me, i care. any idiot can pull a trigger or push a button, besides that i dont need to see and have to deal with a bunch of people who act like there 8 years old on a daily basis... seriously now

[chicamahomico]

You are missing the point. Whether or not a certain type of programming appeals to your tastes is irrelevent, the point is that program content should not be legislated to such an extent. It is not your place to 'care' for any other tax paying, law abiding citizen.

who cares, are you kidding me, i care. any idiot can pull a trigger or push a button, besides that i dont need to see and have to deal with a bunch of people who act like there 8 years old on a daily basis... seriously now

[Pheedno]

Boo ****ing hoo for Howard Stern.
The FCC is in place to moniter and police the air waves. Only reason for an uproar is that you dont have two outputs in radio(now sat.) that you have in TV(cable/basic), to seperate the "R" from the "PG".
Clear Channel dropping him is no different than a network dropping a TV series; and isn't he still being broadcasted by the company that owns that show?
In any case, it's business. Stern costs Clear Channel money, and they get rid of him. They could care less what goes out over their air waves, just so long as it's bringing in money; and if you have Stern catching fines for profanity, then why would they keep his show on the air? If I owned Clear Channel and was getting the FCC on my back because of him, I'd toss his ass too. Bubba the love sponge is the same situation.

[chicamahomico]

Yes the FCC's mandate is to police the airwaves in many respects, one of which is programming content. It's easy to say 'boo hoo Howard Stern' but the real issue here is the erosion of free speech or censorship, however you choose to view the issue. You might agree with this particular provision the FCC is setting out because it is in line with your values but will the next one be, and the next one after that?

The government places sanctions (taxes, fines, tarrifs, etc) to discourage a particular activity. This is appropriate in many cases because of quantifiable detrimental effects on society which the gvt wishes to reduce. An example would be taxation of tobacco products, this is a good thing because it provides quantifiable benefits to society. I fail to see how placing further sanctions on programming content is beneficial to society. The FCC is arbitrarily creating an unfavourable business environment to appease a few beaurocrats......at society's expense.

I dunno about you guys but I like to make up my mind whether or not I watch or listen to 'crap'. IMO it's not the government's place to legislate moral values. I'm actually suprised at many of the American bro's on this board, I thought you boys were for less governance.

Boo ****ing hoo for Howard Stern.
The FCC is in place to moniter and police the air waves. Only reason for an uproar is that you dont have two outputs in radio(now sat.) that you have in TV(cable/basic), to seperate the "R" from the "PG".
Clear Channel dropping him is no different than a network dropping a TV series; and isn't he still being broadcasted by the company that owns that show?
In any case, it's business. Stern costs Clear Channel money, and they get rid of him. They could care less what goes out over their air waves, just so long as it's bringing in money; and if you have Stern catching fines for profanity, then why would they keep his show on the air? If I owned Clear Channel and was getting the FCC on my back because of him, I'd toss his ass too. Bubba the love sponge is the same situation.

[Carlos_E]

Yes the FCC's mandate is to police the airwaves in many respects, one of which is programming content. It's easy to say 'boo hoo Howard Stern' but the real issue here is the erosion of free speech or censorship, however you choose to view the issue. You might agree with this particular provision the FCC is setting out because it is in line with your values but will the next one be, and the next one after that?

The government places sanctions (taxes, fines, tarrifs, etc) to discourage a particular activity. This is appropriate in many cases because of quantifiable detrimental effects on society which the gvt wishes to reduce. An example would be taxation of tobacco products, this is a good thing because it provides quantifiable benefits to society. I fail to see how placing further sanctions on programming content is beneficial to society. The FCC is arbitrarily creating an unfavourable business environment to appease a few beaurocrats......at society's expense.

I dunno about you guys but I like to make up my mind whether or not I watch or listen to 'crap'. IMO it's not the government's place to legislate moral values. I'm actually suprised at many of the American bro's on this board, I thought you boys were for less governance.

Nice post.

[markas214]

theres a difference between freedom of speech and channeling your trash talk to millions of people

Change the station! Nobody is forced to listen to Stern. I don't need to be told what I can listen to.

[markas214]

sure it's easy as turning the channel and not listening but what about those people who act and believe such things people like stern say

They are free to believe as the please.

[markas214]

who cares, are you kidding me, i care. any idiot can pull a trigger or push a button, besides that i dont need to see and have to deal with a bunch of people who act like there 8 years old on a daily basis... seriously now

Well that's the way the world is. Get used to it. It is satire and humor. I'm sorry it may be over your head but it's all a joke.

[floyd_turbo]

Well that's the way the world is. Get used to it. It is satire and humor. I'm sorry it may be over your head but it's all a joke.

lol... over my head.. **** bro some people take life very seriously.. why dont you enlighten me

[floyd_turbo]

You are missing the point. Whether or not a certain type of programming appeals to your tastes is irrelevent, the point is that program content should not be legislated to such an extent. It is not your place to 'care' for any other tax paying, law abiding citizen.

i believe your missing the point.. this is one single case, who gives a rats ass about howard stern? big deal. not like the walls of democracy are gonna come crumbling down....

[floyd_turbo]

The FCC is arbitrarily creating an unfavourable business environment to appease a few beaurocrats......at society's expense.

how is the loss of howard stern and bureaucracy the same topic? are you saying that the government wants to administrate every faucet of the media? well if thats the case someone already does that its called capitalism and corporations... and an elite few with the help of government basically program society

[floyd_turbo]

all i gotta say about that is **** howard stern, **** the media, **** the government, **** the corporations and **** you for buying into their bull**** ideology...

peace

[Pheedno]

Yes the FCC's mandate is to police the airwaves in many respects, one of which is programming content. It's easy to say 'boo hoo Howard Stern' but the real issue here is the erosion of free speech or censorship, however you choose to view the issue. You might agree with this particular provision the FCC is setting out because it is in line with your values but will the next one be, and the next one after that?

This is not censorship in the slightest. This is a business decision by Clear Channel to clean up what THEY, the owners of the station feel is innapropriate; and the reason why it's suddenly innapropriate is because it's costing them money. As said before, Bubba the Love Sponge is the exact same situation. You make me pull my checkbook out for 750,000 and your getting cut. Stern is still aired on dozens of radio stations around the nation, just not on Clear Channel.
I also don't think I have anything to worry about on provisions against my shows of choice. I listen to Limbaugh, Beck, Baker, and Grey

The government places sanctions (taxes, fines, tarrifs, etc) to discourage a particular activity. This is appropriate in many cases because of quantifiable detrimental effects on society which the gvt wishes to reduce. An example would be taxation of tobacco products, this is a good thing because it provides quantifiable benefits to society. I fail to see how placing further sanctions on programming content is beneficial to society. The FCC is arbitrarily creating an unfavourable business environment to appease a few beaurocrats......at society's expense.

You wouldn't consider a man calling into a show and claiming rape of an underage girl to have a detrimental effect towards listeners? This was one of many "infractions" on BtLS which promted that $750,000 fine. He was not taken off by the FCC, he was fired by the station. Still not censorship, but I think the FCC did what was necessary in that situation
I do not know what the fine was handed out for on Stern, so I couldn't give an opinion on whther his content was detrimental. It may have been an extremely unjustified penalty(which I highly doubt), but in any case we are not talking censorship. If he was bringing in enough money for Clear Channel, he'd still be there; but their seeing a decline in listeners, thus a decline in cash flow. Bye Bye.

I dunno about you guys but I like to make up my mind whether or not I watch or listen to 'crap'. IMO it's not the government's place to legislate moral values. I'm actually suprised at many of the American bro's on this board, I thought you boys were for less governance.

I don't think it's the govs job to legislate morals either bro, but it's a money game here. It wont matter what the fine is as long as the money is coming in. The Gov owns the air, the air is rented by the station. If overhead is exceeded by profit, then you have your show. As soon as the government starts doing the hiring for the stations, then you can get me worried

[roccoswello]

All that being said, the radio station did the right thing from a business stand point. Of course they aren't going to lose money over it. But why are they losing money?

Because some stuck up b!tch with nothing better to do with her time heard a radio program that offended her (this is where the boo hoo should come in.). So she got the ball rolling and the FCC started dishing out fines. Fines that drastically encouraged Clear Channel to drop Stern.

People that don't see the conection with this and the whole reason we can't go to CVS and buy AS or even pins in some areas are just blind..........

[markas214]

lol... over my head.. **** bro some people take life very seriously.. why dont you enlighten me

Here's your enlightenment. No one is harmed by Howard Stern. If you don't like him don't listen. Dont' tell me what i can listen to or laugh at. In 100 years we'll all be long dead and forgotten. Life is short. I prefer to have a little fun and laugh at the world and all the serious people. Being sullen and serious all the time is not for me. So if that is how you prefer to live fine. Just don't tell me it's OK for the government to f*ck with what I find amusing. I do no harm to others and neither does Howard Stern. A guy like Rush Limbaugh or convicted felons Ollie North and G. Gordon Liddy are more dangerous on the radio than Howard Stern will ever be. Howard Stern is a comic. No ideology there. Talk radio on the other hand... Talk about bullSh*t ideology.

[tryingtogetbig]

Here's your enlightenment. No one is harmed by Howard Stern. If you don't like him don't listen. Dont' tell me what i can listen to or laugh at. In 100 years we'll all be long dead and forgotten. Life is short. I prefer to have a little fun and laugh at the world and all the serious people. Being sullen and serious all the time is not for me. So if that is how you prefer to live fine. Just don't tell me it's OK for the government to f*ck with what I find amusing. I do no harm to others and neither does Howard Stern. A guy like Rush Limbaugh or convicted felons Ollie North and G. Gordon Liddy are more dangerous on the radio than Howard Stern will ever be. Howard Stern is a comic. No ideology there. Talk radio on the other hand... Talk about bullSh*t ideology.

I truly think all of this is just a knee-jerk reaction to the bonehead move by Janet Jackson during the half time show. Give it a few months and everything will blow over...IMO.

I agree with most of you about over-censorship by the government...but to tie clear channel's cancellation of stern's show directly to Bush is absurd.

peace,

ttgb

[floyd_turbo]

Here's your enlightenment. No one is harmed by Howard Stern. If you don't like him don't listen. Dont' tell me what i can listen to or laugh at. In 100 years we'll all be long dead and forgotten. Life is short. I prefer to have a little fun and laugh at the world and all the serious people. Being sullen and serious all the time is not for me. So if that is how you prefer to live fine. Just don't tell me it's OK for the government to f*ck with what I find amusing. I do no harm to others and neither does Howard Stern. A guy like Rush Limbaugh or convicted felons Ollie North and G. Gordon Liddy are more dangerous on the radio than Howard Stern will ever be. Howard Stern is a comic. No ideology there. Talk radio on the other hand... Talk about bullSh*t ideology.

thats my enlightenment? i feel cheated i hear ya bro

[chicamahomico]

Yes but the government is the sole and direct cause of this. I'm not placing any blam on Bush, Republican's, Democrats or any other specific entity. What I am saying is that the gvt should not be further reducing what can and cannot be said on the air. How would you feel if the FCC suddenly decided that Limbaugh was offensive so they simply legislated fines large enough so many stations would cut him. This is about the gvt playing social babysitter by providing incentive for stations to remove programming they are not fond of.

This is not censorship in the slightest. This is a business decision by Clear Channel to clean up what THEY, the owners of the station feel is innapropriate; and the reason why it's suddenly innapropriate is because it's costing them money.....I also don't think I have anything to worry about on provisions against my shows of choice.....

I agree with what you are saying here but consider this: they arent doing the hiring but they are indirectly doing the firing by artificially increasing the overhead to an amount which makes the show they wish to be dropped infeasable for a station to carry. If you only start to worry once the gvt is doing the hiring at non-public stations it's already too late my friend.

I don't think it's the govs job to legislate morals either bro, but it's a money game here. It wont matter what the fine is as long as the money is coming in. The Gov owns the air, the air is rented by the station. If overhead is exceeded by profit, then you have your show. As soon as the government starts doing the hiring for the stations, then you can get me worried

[roccoswello]

Preach it brother, Amen

[Tock]

This was one of many "infractions" on BtLS which promted that $750,000 fine.

It's funny, how Howard gets fined $750,000 for a few intemperate words, and companies that knowingly expose employees to life-threatening poisons get fined mere fractions of that penalty . . .
It seems to me that if the government feels a fine of $258,000 is appropriate for a company guilty of willful screwups that got two employees killed, then a fine of $750,000 is a gross example of overkill (maybe even persecution) by the gov't of a broadcaster.

Goes to show that in the Bush Administration, "Purity of the airwaves" is much more important than workplace safety . . . read on . . .

======================================
December 29, 2003
OSHA seeks fines for refinery injury
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) said it cited three employers for allegedly failing to protect workers from safety hazards at a Douglasville refinery.

OSHA is proposing penalties totaling $56,250 for unsafe conditions that resulted in one worker being severely burned.

According to OSHA, the accident occurred June 25 at the Young Refinery located on Huey Road in Douglasville. According to OSHA's investigation, Young Refinery Corp. had hired two contractors, Process Piping Services and Metro Welding, to perform welding and cutting operations.

OSHA said a Process Piping Services employee was welding the top of a petroleum tank when sparks from the operation ignited fumes emanating from a nearby storage tank. The worker was severely burned by the ensuing fire and explosion.

OSHA said it issued 26 serious citations to Young Refinery Corp. with proposed penalties totaling $46,250. Included in the citations were alleged failures to develop and implement a written process safety management plan; prepare an emergency action plan; conduct a pre-start safety review and hazard evaluation, and provide proper safety equipment and training to its employees and the contractors' employees. The company also did not have a "hot work" permit, which documents that the welding and cutting are being done in compliance with fire prevention and protection regulations.

OSHA said Process Piping Services received four serious citations with proposed penalties of $5,750 for allegedly failing to conduct an inspection before beginning work; establish a fire watch during the operation; provide employees working on top of tanks with fall protection; and have a written hazard communication program for chemicals and materials used by employees.

OSHA said Metro Welding received four serious citations, similar to those issued to Process Piping Services, with proposed penalties of $4,250, for safety hazards observed during the OSHA investigation.
=================================

http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/ka...7/daily27.html
OSHA fines Missouri firm
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration announced Wednesday that it has fined a Jackson, Mo., company $218,500 for allegedly exposing employees to hazardous levels of ethylene oxide.


Midwest Sterilization Corp. received 16 citations — including nine that were considered serious — stemming from an April inspection by the OSHA that turned up elevated concentrations of ethylene oxide.

Norma Conrad, a spokeswoman in the U.S. Department of Labor's Kansas City regional office, said the inspection was precipitated by complaints by five of the firm's employees.

A serious violation is defined by the administration as a situation where there is a substantial probability of death or serious physical harm caused to employees put in a situation the employer knew or should have known about.

Midwest Sterilization Corp. uses 100 percent ethylene oxide to provide commercial sterilization servies.

In a release, OHSA said that the firm inadequately monitored exposure levels to the sterilant, inadequately sampled the frequency of the ethylene oxide levels and provided inadequate written materials and training to employees about ethylene oxide levels.

Midwest Sterilization Corp. has 15 working days to appeal the fines.
===============================

January 29, 2003
OSHA fines Reddy Ice $57,200 following ammonia leak
The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued 15 serious citations to Reddy Ice of East Point and proposed $57,200 in fines following the agency's investigation of a July 24 ammonia release that sent four workers to the hospital.


A serious citation is issued when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result and the employer knew or should have known of the hazard.

On the day of the incident, employees at the ice manufacturing facility had finished changing electrical controls on a compressor and were in the process of restarting the motor when a buildup of pressure in the compressor caused a valve to rupture, blowing metal parts and ammonia into the air.

"This accident could have been avoided if the company had followed requirements of the process safety management standard and conducted a safety review before making modifications to the compressor," said Andre Richards, OSHA's Atlanta-West area director.

OSHA cited the company for failing to have an emergency action plan, failing to conduct a safety review before beginning modifications to equipment and failing to have an air pressure gauge on the compressed air receiver. The company was also cited for failing to have written programs for process safety management, respiratory protection, confined space entry and hazard communication. All of these programs require that employees receive appropriate training.

Reddy Ice has 15 working days to contest the OSHA citations and proposed penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

========================

February 14, 2003
OSHA fines Durango-Georgia Paper after explosion
The U.S. Labor Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has cited Durango-Georgia Paper Co. and charged $258,000 in fines for safety hazards at its St. Mary's, Ga. plant.


The citations resulted from inspection of an explosion at the plant on Aug. 17 that killed two workers and seriously injured a third.

As two employees attempted to relight a recovery boiler, an explosion occurred, forcibly scattering steam, hot black liquor, smelt and boiler parts throughout the area. The two workers and a third almost 50 feet away suffered severe thermal and chemical burns. Two of the victims later died of their injuries.

"This company has been cited in the recent past for willful violations, which are issued when there is a finding of intentional disregard for worker safety," said John Deifer, OSHA's Savannah area director. "In our inspection of this tragic accident, we found two willful, one repeat and 45 serious violations, exposing workers to hazards throughout the plant."

OSHA found the company allowed employees to work at heights of up to 50 feet without providing fall protection, and required employees to stand on a conveyor belt to remove jammed logs without assuring that the machine was first "locked out," which would have rendered it inoperable during the activity. These workers were exposed to being struck by moving logs, falling from the conveyor or being thrown into the chipper machine.

Another fine accompanied a repeat citation for seven instances of accumulation of debris in various locations throughout the plant. The company had been cited for a similar violation in August 2000.

One hazard, directly related to the explosion, was among the 45 serious violations cited. The employer allowed workers to light the boiler using a continuous flow of fuel oil for at least several minutes, resulting in excess accumulation of explosive gases in the boiler, rather than following industry-recognized start-up procedures which call for closing an igniter shutoff valve if a flame is not established within 10 seconds. According to the National Fire Protection Association, waiting at least a minute before again trying to ignite the boiler prevents build-up of combustible gases.

A second serious citation concerned exposing employees to injury from falling concrete, brick and glass in areas of the plant that were experiencing structural deterioration. The falling debris also posed a potential threat of damaging lines carrying chlorine dioxide in these areas. Vapors and fumes from the lethal gas can be fatal.

Durango-Georgia, a subsidiary of Corporacion Durango of Mexico, employed approximately 900 workers at the St. Mary's paper mill. Since the OSHA inspection, the company has closed the mill and sought bankruptcy protection. On Nov. 19, Chapter 11 status was granted.

[Tock]

And here's another casualty of the Bush war on free broadcasting--a note the FRC sent me:
--Tock
----------------------------------------------------
From: "Family Research Council"
Date: 12 Apr 04 17:38:16
Subject: Washington Update - April 12, 2004

April 12, 2004

Victoria's Secret Drops Lingerie Show


Decency continues to make a comeback on the public airwaves! It seems Ed Razek, Chief Creative Officer for Victoria's Secret has decided to forgo the company's much-hyped lingerie fashion show, due to the FCC's crackdown on indecency. Razek said the decision to drop the show was made "probably six to eight weeks ago when the heat was on the television networks," proof that when the FCC flexes its muscle, networks pay attention.

Last Thursday federal regulators proposed $495,000 in indecency fines against Clear Channel Communications for one of Howard Stern's shows that garnered 18 alleged violations. Clear Channel had suspended the shock jock in February, but made the cut permanent last week saying Mr. Stern's show has created a great liability for them and other broadcasters who air it. The bottom line is that people like you are fed up with smut being pumped onto the public airwaves and the pressure you're putting on Congress and the FCC is working. Even Howard Stern gets the point. "There's a cultural war going on," said the shock jock on a recent broadcast. "The religious right is winning. We're losing."

[Carlos_E]

And here's another casualty of the Bush war on free broadcasting--a note the FRC sent me:
--Tock
----------------------------------------------------
From: "Family Research Council"
Date: 12 Apr 04 17:38:16
Subject: Washington Update - April 12, 2004

April 12, 2004

Victoria's Secret Drops Lingerie Show


Decency continues to make a comeback on the public airwaves! It seems Ed Razek, Chief Creative Officer for Victoria's Secret has decided to forgo the company's much-hyped lingerie fashion show, due to the FCC's crackdown on indecency. Razek said the decision to drop the show was made "probably six to eight weeks ago when the heat was on the television networks," proof that when the FCC flexes its muscle, networks pay attention.

Last Thursday federal regulators proposed $495,000 in indecency fines against Clear Channel Communications for one of Howard Stern's shows that garnered 18 alleged violations. Clear Channel had suspended the shock jock in February, but made the cut permanent last week saying Mr. Stern's show has created a great liability for them and other broadcasters who air it. The bottom line is that people like you are fed up with smut being pumped onto the public airwaves and the pressure you're putting on Congress and the FCC is working. Even Howard Stern gets the point. "There's a cultural war going on," said the shock jock on a recent broadcast. "The religious right is winning. We're losing."

Reading stuff like this makes me want to go out, run naked in the streets and take a dumb on the steps of Congress. How's that for indecency.

[roccoswello]

I think we should ban banning stuff........

[chicamahomico]

If only Stern could get the 'Million Moron Marchers' to all simultaneously drop trou and use Carlos's strategy in Times Square. Now that would send a message!

[Carlos_E]

If only Stern could get the 'Million Moron Marchers' to all simultaneously drop trou and use Carlos's strategy in Times Square. Now that would send a message!

[markas214]

If only Stern could get the 'Million Moron Marchers' to all simultaneously drop trou and use Carlos's strategy in Times Square. Now that would send a message!

That is a great idea. Some one should phone Stern's show and make that suggestion.

[Tock]

dose it not seem liek Bush is tryiong to take america back into time to 1950?

No . . . more like 1650.
-Tock