The Daily Stern

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)?

: Jack Balkin joins in with Yale Law School colleague Ernie Miller to marvel at the FCC’s expansion of its authority in its ruling against the F-word last week. Says Jack:

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.

12 responses to “The Daily Stern”

  1. Ed Avatar

    Frank Rich is the one who wanted Matt Drudge silenced – and danced a jig when Fox News Channel fired him a few years back.
    There are an awful lot of great free speech arguments being made right now by people who are credible on the subject. Frank Rich doesn’t seem to be one of them, IMO.
    Free speech isn’t something you root for when it suits your political tilt. Someone should explain that to Rich.

  2. John Avatar

    (Sigh) It’s been nearly three weeks now, and I still haven’t gotten an answer to my question: If it’s all about the First Amendment and the absolute right of expression for Howard Stern, then why did Infinity yank Opie and Anthony off the radio for a radio stunt which resulted in two people f–king in St. Patrick’s Cathedial. And why didn’t Howard Stern defend them at the time instead of defending Infinity and boss Mel Karmaza (call Howard and ask for the tape of the broadcast if you don’t believe me, Jeff).
    In this case Howard was no Patrick Henry; he saw the need for limits in what a shock jock can say and or do on the air and you know what? He was right.
    While the FCC does need to do a better job and clarifying in writing what can and what can’t be said over the airwaves, the idea that there should be no controls at all, or that the standards during the time without and written rules can only go in one direction — towards more permissiveness — is libertarian in a childish way.
    You love Howard Stern, therefore you’ll defend Howard’s right to stay on the air no matter what comes over the airwaves from his show, but at the same time, when I ask about Stern’s justification for demanding that Opie and Anthony not mention Howard’s name on the air — an act of censorship granted by Kamazan solely because Howard was the big dog breadwinner for Infinity — the response I get from you is crickets chirping.
    Infinity has the right to adjust its programming to maximize its profits/minimize its losses, just as Clear Channel does. Howard understood that in 2002 when he muzzled his up-and-coming NYC rivals and when he defended Infinity’s removing them from the air after the St. Paddy’s spat. The fact that he (and you) want that to go down the memory hole in 2004 because it doesn’t fit the “free speech” story line doesn’t change the fact it happened (though if Howard would at least go on the air and say he was wrong in trying to censor O&A two years ago, it would at least show some retroactive logical consistancy. Mel would still have the right to have done what he did, just as Lowery Mays had the right to do what he did, but at least Stern wouldn’t be such a poseur about being on the barricades of the free speech movement).

  3. susan Avatar

    Look at the issue from another angle.
    If we allow for sexist remarks like ‘wow, that f***ing b***h as a great a**’ on the airwaves, are we not then defending the right to freely say racial remarks?
    I do not see the difference between sexist remarks and racist remarks.
    Why are sexist remarks allowed but racial remarks not?
    Is is not our First amendment right to say anything we like on the public airwaves?
    Under the Free speech banner, are we not allowed to humiliate and degrade anyone at anytime? After all, this is our right to free speech.
    If you choose to leave one door open, you then must open all the doors.
    Where do we draw the line between what is decent and indecent?

  4. A.H. Avatar

    Honored to see my illustration used in your post.
    But I’ll repeat it just the same in it’s original form:
    A line drawn in the sand on a windy day is completely useless.
    Have fun arguing, everyone!

  5. JG Avatar

    I will wager that the majority of those who argue for no limits on the first amendment have no problems imposing limits on the second amendment, if not the out-right band on all guns.
    Anyone want to bet a years pay?
    Maybe they can just make a law that anyone who listens to Howard Stern has to stand outside in the cold to satisfy their addiction. That

  6. dc Avatar

    Susan,
    That’s exactly the point. Where do we draw the line between what’s decent and indecent? Who gets to make the decision. The FCC? Why is it okay for Bono to say f***ing brilliant and Oprah to talk about sexual acts explicitly?
    What kind of powers does the FCC have? How long do they have to act on something? Can they decide that something that was said 3 years ago was indecent/profane and fine that and all subsequent “offenses”?

  7. shark Avatar

    Using Frank Rich………how sad. Rich is a hack

  8. bob Avatar

    Jeff,
    Why no link to the article? It can be found here.
    I think that Rich makes a far more important – and more directly relevant point in the following excerpt:

      Censorship is when the government suppresses speech, so, technically at least, Howard Stern, like Bill Maher before him, has not been censored. The only sanction applied to Mr. Stern’s show so far has been the action taken by a corporation, Clear Channel Communications, which yanked him from six stations it owns, as it is freely entitled to do. (Mr. Stern’s program, a product of Viacom, continues to air on roughly 35 other stations.)

      But the story line is more subtle than that. Both Clear Channel’s founder, Lowry Mays, and a director, Thomas Hicks, have long financial associations with George W. Bush, whether as recent campaign contributors or past business cronies (in the Texas Rangers, in Mr. Hicks’s case). Clear Channel needs Washington’s powers-that-be to protect its huge share of the radio market. It’s only after Mr. Stern turned against Mr. Bush on the air that Clear Channel dropped his show, which is otherwise no more or less racy and politically incorrect than it always has been. A Clear Channel executive told Bill Carter of The New York Times this week that his company had “no political agenda,” but those words seem like spin when weighed against the actions of its stations and personnel.

    So according to Rich, Stern wasn’t kicked because Clear Channel was scared of the government. He was kicked becase the management had their own problem with what Stern was saying.
    Should you suddenly be happy that this is the reason Stern was booted? No, and Rich is clearly upset about the reason — even as he raises it to dismiss censorship concerns. But no matter how much you dislike the reason, it’s not remotely related to censorship.

  9. Jeff Jarvis Avatar

    bob: thanks. fixed.

  10. bob Avatar

    Hey, thanks. How many journalists would link to or point out an article right after being told it has contrary information? (even if there’s disagreement on that point)
    Blogs, a little news with an extra helping of integrity.

  11. Charlie (Colorado) Avatar
    Charlie (Colorado)

    I will wager that the majority of those who argue for no limits on the first amendment have no problems imposing limits on the second amendment, if not the out-right band on all guns.
    Anyone want to bet a years pay?
    Don’t take the bet: a lot of us who believe in an absolute First believe in a near-absolute Second.
    Anything under a kilotonne yield….

  12. Andrea Harris Avatar

    And worst of all — this burka is so itchy! (Scratches.)