Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

shakran · 04-11-2004, 09:33 PM

Well here's the thing. ClearChannel decided to drop Stern. That's a programming decision made by a company, not a censorship decision made by the government. I think what you should be ranting at is the FCC fining Stern when they don't fine Oprah for talking about the same stuff. THAT'S censorship. ClearChannel made a business decision that "dude, we can't afford to be paying half a million or more per day in fines just so Stern can talk dirty."

Furthermore, I don't think Stern should be the focal point of the censorship debate, since he doesnt' believe half the crap he says anyway. Hell his own autobiographical movie showed that he's only a shock jock because he figured out he could make money off of it. In other words, he's not being repressed for saying what he believes in because he doesn't actually believe in what he's saying.

Where we should be focusing is on things such as book banning (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory got banned because gee, fat kids might get offended, etc), and Ashcroft's neverending puritanical war on all things remotely sexual (ordering $10,000 drapes to cover the statue of Justice because a breast is exposed? I think this guy has some repressed sexual issues).

What I think we need to realize is that this country is descended largely from the puritanical Pilgrims who, as Robin Williams so insightfully put it, were so uptight that the British told them to get the fuck out. As such, while we may hear our officials scream liberty and freedom at the top of their voices, what they really mean is liberty and freedom as long as you don't say anything they don't like.

I find it interesting that most government officials use KKK rallies to "prove" they're proponents of freedom of speech. They always say that while they hate what the KKK has to say, the KKK has the right to say it. Fine, that's great, and in fact that's true, but it'd be nice if those same officials would then support other areas involving freedom of speech, such as radio and television broadcasts, books, and even lurid materials.

What I've never understood is why anti-porn people are so anti-porn. If you don't want to look at porn, that's great. What the hell do you care if others do it? I don't like to eat asparagus. That doesn't mean I get angry when I see others eating it.

04-11-2004, 09:33 PM	#55 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	Well here's the thing. ClearChannel decided to drop Stern. That's a programming decision made by a company, not a censorship decision made by the government. I think what you should be ranting at is the FCC fining Stern when they don't fine Oprah for talking about the same stuff. THAT'S censorship. ClearChannel made a business decision that "dude, we can't afford to be paying half a million or more per day in fines just so Stern can talk dirty." Furthermore, I don't think Stern should be the focal point of the censorship debate, since he doesnt' believe half the crap he says anyway. Hell his own autobiographical movie showed that he's only a shock jock because he figured out he could make money off of it. In other words, he's not being repressed for saying what he believes in because he doesn't actually believe in what he's saying. Where we should be focusing is on things such as book banning (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory got banned because gee, fat kids might get offended, etc), and Ashcroft's neverending puritanical war on all things remotely sexual (ordering $10,000 drapes to cover the statue of Justice because a breast is exposed? I think this guy has some repressed sexual issues). What I think we need to realize is that this country is descended largely from the puritanical Pilgrims who, as Robin Williams so insightfully put it, were so uptight that the British told them to get the fuck out. As such, while we may hear our officials scream liberty and freedom at the top of their voices, what they really mean is liberty and freedom as long as you don't say anything they don't like. I find it interesting that most government officials use KKK rallies to "prove" they're proponents of freedom of speech. They always say that while they hate what the KKK has to say, the KKK has the right to say it. Fine, that's great, and in fact that's true, but it'd be nice if those same officials would then support other areas involving freedom of speech, such as radio and television broadcasts, books, and even lurid materials. What I've never understood is why anti-porn people are so anti-porn. If you don't want to look at porn, that's great. What the hell do you care if others do it? I don't like to eat asparagus. That doesn't mean I get angry when I see others eating it.