: Amy Langfield is also offended by Rev. Billy’s nonsensical and stupid use of the sacred ground of the World Trade Center for his event. Amy and I are both in favor of the First Amendment and wouldn’t stop him. But because of the First Amendment, we’re both free to think he’s an utter twit.
Posts from March 22, 2004
The Daily Stern
: FINALLY, THE BANDWAGON FILLS UP: Frank Rich sums it all up in the Sunday NY Times:
f we lived in Afghanistan under the Taliban, perhaps it might make sense that Janet Jackson’s breast (not even the matched set!) would lead to one of the most hysterical outbreaks of Puritanism in recent, even not-so-recent, American history. So what gives?
: IT SPREADS: The FTC — apparently jealous of all the attention the FCC is getting — is getting into the business of regulating media and speech, aka censorship. On the official Federal Trade Commission site, they announce:
The Federal Trade Commission has expanded its consumer complaint handling system to categorize and track complaints about media violence, including complaints about the advertising, marketing, and sale of violent movies, electronic games (including video games), and music. The expanded complaint system, implemented in response to Congressional directives, will enable the Commission to track consumer complaints about media violence and identify issues of particular concern to consumers.
Another line. Who draws it. And where do they draw it?
I might just complain that Mel Gibson didn’t adequately advertise the extent of the violence of The Passion and masqueraded an offensively violent film as religion, which is downright blasphemous, which would be profane, which would make it a matter now for the FCC, eh?
Absurd? Well who’s to say what’s absurd and what’s obscene (and what’s violent)?
Of course, any decision to expand broadcast profanity to include hate speech would be highly politically charged, and therefore is likely to lead to accusations of political favoritism and censorship on the part of the FCC. But the decision to punish the F-world but not the N-word is itself hardly politically neutral…. My advice to the FCC would be to stop now before they completely f*** things up.
: PREVIOUS DAILY STERN POSTS: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here.
The Daily Stern: A complaint to the FCC
: I sat down and wrote a letter to Michael Powell, head of the FCC, to see how easy it would be to use the FCC’s own words to argue that if they fine Howard Stern, they must fine Oprah Winfrey. Piece of cake. Not sure I’ll send it, though; I don’t really want to stoke the FCC’s stove with complaints. But you can send it if you want. Powell’s address is [email protected]. The letter:
Mr. Michael Powell:
I write to file a complaint against the Oprah Winfrey Show that aired across the nation on Thursday, March 18, 2004 with explicit sexual and excretory references.
Let me make clear that I strongly oppose the FCC and government attempting to regulate speech; it is, I firmly believe, a violation of the First Amendment. I consequently strongly oppose the FCC’s imposition of fines against the Howard Stern Show on Thursday, March 18. On the same matter of principle, I also would oppose the imposition of fines against the Oprah Winfrey Show.
However, what was said on the Winfrey show — on the very same day that you imposed fines against Stern — is quite equivalent. If you fine Stern, it seems clear that you must fine Winfrey. If you do not fine Winfrey, then it seems equally clear that you must rescind the fines against Stern. The speech is virtually identical. The only difference is the speaker.