The Daily Stern

The Daily Stern

: THE LAWLESSNESS OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES: Dale McFeatters, whose column I read in the NY Post, comes out in defense of the First Amendment and Howard Stern against the FCC:

It would be ironic if the conservative FCC set out to get shock jock Howard Stern, whose huge ratings should tell the FCC something, and got Rush instead, but unintended consequences are an inevitable consequence of trying to regulate speech.

  • Andy

    “The fuzziness of the various definitions of decency and indecency, acceptable and unacceptable speech suggest something else: If you can’t adequately define what you’re regulating, maybe you shouldn’t be regulating it. ”
    Watching Eddie Murphy Raw with all the bleeps was still funny. It begged the question of why he had to “go blue”.
    Actually, watching the olde B&W movies or even the original Muppets TV show is fun. Both demonstrate how a message and humor can be communicated to several generations at the same time using wit and a broad vocabulary.
    Apparently some artisits are unable to work unless they work blue. That is sad.
    Now we have the predicament where any reversal by the FCC will grant permission for unbridled licentiousness and prime-time-porn. “Free Speech” is everywhere-!

  • http://www.tonypierce.com/blog/bloggy.htm tony

    I’ll tell you what then, Andy, you can have Eddie with the bleeps and I’ll take him without.
    Eddie has proven, however, that he is powerful “blue” or not blue. Coming to America and the Nutty Professor was PG-13 and truly funny, and his dirty stuff was groundbreaking.
    Remember this from Raw?
    Eddie was talking about Richard Pryor talking about Cosby’s complaint that Eddie couldnt work blue either and Eddie said:
    Eddie Murphy: [Richard Pryor] said, “Well tell (Cosby) I say, ‘Have a Coke and a smile, and shut the fuck up.’”

  • Mike

    tony, so do you believe that the movie RAW should be shown at say 7 PM, on CBS, without the edits?

  • http://www.tonypierce.com tony

    of course

  • h0mi

    It is not deemed a violation of the first amendment to force age verification for purchasing playboy or similar materials. Or admission into similar such movies (or R rated movies). Or the requirement that such magazines can’t be situated in such a way that children have access to read and view them.
    I fail to see why broadcast media must be subject to a different standard than what we offer newsprint/magazine/book/video sales. Including standards that are looser (like porn at 7pm on broadcast tv) or stricter (like prohibiting the mention of the word “penis”).

  • http://leatherpenguin.com/MT TC-LeatherPenguin

    Jeff, this is Les Trautmann’s ghost…I’ve hijacked the redhead…
    NO READING NY POST!
    (stick to the family, dammit!)