Your views on censorship?

Discussion Open Forum
1

I’m sure most of you have heard that American shock jock Howard Stern’s radio program was dropped from “the nation’s largest radio chain” because it was determined that Stern’s show was too much of a financial liability.

Stern has been pissing off the FCC for years, and stations have been fined for some of the things said on his program. Now there are new fines being proposed which are quite substantial and, as a result, Stern’s show is seen as too much of a financial risk by some stations.

If you have never listened to Stern’s show, it is filled with, often, juvenile humor ( a lot of “potty” jokes), some racist stuff, sexist material, etc. (The basic stuff one would expect to find from a shock jock’s show).

While I can understand why Stern’s show is offensive to some, I don’t agree with penalizing stations which carry his program. It seems to me that Stern’s show, while not my personal favorite, doesn’t really “hurt” society in any way, shape or form. While I would surely agree that Stern’s show doesn’t enrich American society or culture at all, there are many TV shows (Jerry Springer comes to mind), movies, and styles of music that the same could be said about.

The truth is that Stern is a wealthy man today because his show appeals to a large number of people. If and when Stern loses his audience, he will be taken off the air very quickly.

I believe that censorship is at times a necessary evil, such as not allowing nudity to be shown on TV at prime time, but Stern’s show uses language and is on the air at a time when kids are most likely not listening. (Early morning when they are at school, or getting ready to go).

Thus, I say the government should get off Stern’s back, and let the listener decide whether he is offensive or not. If the answer is yes, I am sure the listener will have enough sense to turn off the radio.

Anybody care to share their feelings about censorship?

2

Censorship is necessary, but the levels at which it is implemented are negotiable, and should reflect a society’s standards, a society’s aspirations, and a society’s taboos. I have no comment on Howard Stern. I saw his movie, which I imagine was considerably tamer than some of his radio shows, but I have no idea of what it takes to piss off the FCC nowadays. Eminem is still doing his thang, so I guess they’re can’t be all that bad.

3

I am more worried about near monopolies such as Clear Channel than I am about censorship.

4

Exactly.

5

I think censorship is and should be up its own :nsfw:
Unless it’s rude of course.

6

I found this article insteresting and relevent to the discussion. It’s not very long.

opednews.com/creekmore030804 … hannel.htm

I never even heard of clear channel before. I had fun researching this topic. Thanks.

7

And Larry Flynt is a wealthy man because his magazine and other enterprises appeal to a large number of people. But even Larry understands the rules: that a broadcast medium isn’t the right place for all material.

Howard knows what he was getting into. His show was being broadcast across America. This means that the company that pays him is licensed the rights to use public broadcast airwaves for virtually free–under the condition that they meet local standards in the areas they syndicate to. That’s the trade-off in the deal they signed for their section of the radio band.

I’m thinking you don’t have children.

Stern has never been censored. Censorship is when the government makes a work unavailable to the public. Stern still has many media to look into to continue his work.

What might be entertaining to an adult listening to the radio at work might not be to a parent driving their children to school with the radio on. “Offensive” is a subjective term. Whether you agree with them or not, you may understand that most parents want to feel they can let their children watch TV or listen to the radio during the daytime without having them exposed to sexually graphic material. The FCC has been increasingly lax about what it considers appropriate for those hours.

Infinity, Clear Channel and other corporations exist only to make money. They do as little as necessary to meet FCC standards and as much as possible to make a profit. The FCC has even stated that Howard’s kind of material may be appropriate for public airwaves, so long as it isn’t at a time when minors are most likely to be listening.

He knew what he was doing.

8

[quote=“miltownkid”]I found this article insteresting and relevent to the discussion. It’s not very long.

opednews.com/creekmore030804 … hannel.htm

I never even heard of clear channel before. I had fun researching this topic. Thanks.[/quote]

Interesting article. Very, very informative. Thanks for passing it along.

9

Yes, if the parents don’t want their kids to hear it, then don’t listen. I do wonder about the excutive branch’s involvement in this…I believe in six degrees of separation, but this is ridiculous. First Florida in November 2000 and now this.

10

Sorry but based on countless interviews I have seen Flynt give, the only rules he seems to play by are his own. I have never heard him oppose any idea except those that advocate child porn. Honestly, I think he would be the last person to say that Stern’s show has ever done anything which was not suitable to be broadcast on the radio.

[quote]Stern has never been censored[/quote].

Of course Stern has been and is being censored. There are things that Stern cannot say or do on the air, just like all people working in TV and radio. Thus, whenever certain views are not allowed, no matter how offensive, that is a form of censorship. And taking him off the air in certain markets is certainly censorship.

Exactly. Thus, Stern is being and has been censored because there are things he can’t do or say on the air. And his show is being taken out of certain markets based on things said on his show.

I agree but this doesn’t negate the fact that he is being, for all intents and purposes, persecuted for having a show which some, perhaps many, folks don’t like. Thus, he should not have to search for other outlets in which to continue working.

Well, why couldn’t the parent just turn off the radio or switch channels? Actually, I think it would be very irresponsible for a parent to drive their child to school while having Stern’s show playing in the car. I would feel the same way about most rap music. However, I don’t think the rapper, Stern, or people who enjoy such entertainment should be punished simply because some parent refuses to turn off the radio or turn the dial to another station.

Again, parents should act in a responsible manner by monitoring what their children are watching and listening to in the home. The truth is that probably many things that are on TV, movies or the radio contain elements which are not suitable for kids to watch or listen to. Thus, parental control is needed for children.

Honestly, one could argue that there are not any really “good” hours for certain programs to be broadcast. However, as I said earlier, when kids are suppose to be in school or going to school seems like the best time to broadcast such a show.

Granted, Infinity, Clear Channel and other corporations are not non-profit organizations. However, the FCC is clearly engaged in a “witch-hunt” against Stern and others that the FCC disapproves of. The FCC is using intimidation in the form of fines in order to scare stations from carrying Stern’s show. Thus, this is clearly a case of censorship.

Yes, as does the FCC.

11

Stern is saying that the FCC lacks consistency, and uses an example from Oprah Winfrey to make his point:

howardstern.com/oprah.html

First saw this at the beginning of the month (Hmmm… April Fool?) -

iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1 … 544O160371

[quote]On Wednesday, the FCC separately announced that it was also zeroing in on America’s crop of daytime soap operas to determine whether they also were getting a little too steamy.

FCC officials reminded reporters at a press conference that television broadcasters are barred from showing programmes between the hours of 6am and 10pm that in any way display “sexual or excretory functions”[/quote]

12

cableguy wrote:

You’re right–bad example. But I have read a quote of him which expressed the idea that he knows there are places that aren’t right for distributing his magazine, and that it’s not right for kids. I should have used a better comparison.

Also, as a parent I have to tell you that it’s very unrealistic to expect us to monitor our children during the entire day. If a restaurant or store that they’re in is playing his show, or if they want to listen to music in their room I’d like to know that there are certain subjects that’ll be avoided, or that if they are they’re handled in a responsible way. And check out how many kids on the bus going to school have on earphones listening to the radio. How does a parent monitor that? My son’s only 10, but I want to know he can listen to the radio during those hours and not be exposed to that.

Public airwaves are regulated to be treated the same as any other public forum. His language isn’t appropriate for broadcast radio in the same way that it wouldn’t be right for a public park when children are present.

You’re right–but there are different types of censorship. Is his show being censored from the airwaves? Yes. But are his views no longer accessible to the public? No. His views are still being expressed and printed, and he has plans to take his show onto the Internet. The FCC isn’t concerned with what he’s saying–only where he’s saying it.

And I don’t think you understood the importance of my point about his show being on the public airwaves:

The radio band is a limited resoure: frequency assignments can’t be shared, and they’re limited in how many signals can fit in the FM and AM bands.
When Congress originally dealt with assigning channels, they considered selling or leasing them to the highest bidder. What they adopted instead was the idea that licenses would be given for a nominal fee–in exchange for the broadcasters fulfilliing certain obligations. I’d suggest you read this:

chnm.gmu.edu/history120/20thcent … elevision/

The FCC doesn’t want Howard Stern off the air because he’s discussing sexually-explicit material. It’s the way that he does it. That’s why someone like Dr. Ruth Westheimer could talk about virtually any subject concerning sex and not get canned.

Like I wrote, there’s a place for Howard Stern’s show. But not in the morning on public airwaves.

What bothers me is how people are getting all worked up about this when it’s just such a lot of fluff. I realize that many adolescent boys are going through withdrawals from lack on information on lesbian mud-wrestling, but does anybody care that there are bigger things to consider? Look–if you want to worry about something wrong with the FCC I can tell you that there are problems that completely dwarf the Stern issue. How about the relaxing of the ownership rules? Doesn’t is bother you that the media in the US is channeled through fewer and fewer (very huge) corporations? Does is bother you that the limits on how many media outlets a company can own in one market are being tossed away? Everybody’s upset about Janet Jackson’s nipple, when the real issue they should be afraid of is that there might be one media conglomerate in their city that will tell them about it–and more important issues.

As for the conspiracy theories, get a grip, then read this:

radio.about.com/cs/latestradione … 31504a.htm
[/i]

13

Taiwan’s an interesting country where they cut out sex scenes and language in movies, but have porn VCDs sitting right out in the mainstream in the local Blockbusters and even in the FNAC, complete with pictures.

14

I find it weird how they practice censorship in Taiwan. Soooo many times I have watched movies that show graphic violence during the day i.e a man having his head cut off or being shot showing blood and well you get the picture, but then they will mufflep out the “shit” word…
In the movie “Weird Science” they cut out the scene where Kelly Le Brock kisses the dark haired boy breifly on the lips.
In GI Jane they edited out the word “stick” when she tells her training officer to “suck my stick”.
It’s bzzar! There is almost no continuity when they practice sensorship. Taiwan shows indeed more violence on TV during the day than most European countries and yet cuts or edits scenes considered mostly to be mildly violent or offensiveat the same time.
Do they have a board of sensorship in Taiwan? Does anyone know?

15

[quote=“sula_vaca”]I find it weird how they practice censorship in Taiwan. Soooo many times I have watched movies that show graphic violence during the day i.e a man having his head cut off or being shot showing blood and well you get the picture, but then they will mufflep out the “shit” word…
In the movie “Weird Science” they cut out the scene where Kelly Le Brock kisses the dark haired boy breifly on the lips.
In GI Jane they edited out the word “stick” when she tells her training officer to “suck my stick”.
It’s bzzar! There is almost no continuity when they practice sensorship. Taiwan shows indeed more violence on TV during the day than most European countries and yet cuts or edits scenes considered mostly to be mildly violent or offensiveat the same time.
Do they have a board of sensorship in Taiwan? Does anyone know?[/quote]

There is a board of censorship here, a bizarre sporadic board at the GIO. A board that allowed Showgirls, Ready to Wear and Lan Yu to go cut-free, but blurred the dingdong in the Crying Game and made cuts in Y Tu Mama Tambien. And the South Park movie wasn’t allowed at the theaters because it was a cartoon, and cartoons are only for kids, you know. What a bunch of losers.

In Fatal Attraction the GIO cut out the line about cheap Taiwan umbrellas. In the Piranha remake they translated the line about cheap Taiwan nets into just cheap nets.

16

The various TV news channels are also inconsistent with how they choose to cover stories. For example, one channel will cover a story of a jumper / someone who has been injured, and use blocks to cover the person’s face / the bloody wound, but you flick to another channel, and they aren’t using the blocks.

17

I oppose censorship in all forms. I thought that I’d found the bargain of a lifetime when I picked up the following DVDs in Korea for less than 7000 won each:

Argento’s “Opera”
Fulci’s “The Beyond” and “Zombie”

What great films! It says “uncut!” on all the boxes! But woe was me: they cut the films. Aargh!