Wowzers, this country just keeps getting better. First our beloved leader chooses to endorse a proposal to descriminate against 30 million people, and now the wonderful Clear Channel decides that they know what is good for us

Thank you government for sanitizing the airwaves and making sure those damn fags can't enjoy life as much as the rest of us 'God fearing' folk!



As a side note, did anyone see the Larry King live the other day with the Mayor of S.F. and the congresswoman from Colorado? She really came off like a real "see you next Tuesday". That mayor is a true American patriot in every sense of the word, I'm behind him all the way.

Well, it's certainly Clear Channel's right to not air what they don't want to. I imagine that the new liberal radio network won't be carrying Rush Limbaugh, either.

On the other hand, I hope that Stern's company sues them for anti-trust violations.

And remember that Clear Channel has stated that they're not in the radio business, they're in the selling advertisements business.

Well, it's certainly Clear Channel's right to not air what they don't want to

In January, the FCC announced it would fine Clear Channel $750,000 for allegedly indecent content aired by one of its DJs, Todd Clem, known as Bubba the Love Sponge. The company fired Clem on Tuesday



I would say that they just might be bowing to govermental pressures, and if that is the case, it's an entirely different ball of wax.

While I have no doubt this maneuver is in direct correlation with the backlash against Janet Jackson's boobie show and the sudden focus on decency on TV and radio, I'm going to take another side of this argument, and say that Stern jumped the shark a long time ago. His same old schtick has been copied so much that he's no longer out on the cutting edge, and the show hasn't changed in any way to keep up with the copycats. So now that there's a sudden outcry against anything sexual or immoral, it's become a lot easier for Clear Channel to pull him. I don't have the numbers, but I can't imagine his ratings are what they were 10+ years ago when he was actually doing something new and exciting. I personally think Stern is yesterday's news, and even if he cleaned up his act, is on the down side of the mountain, heading towards obscurity.

While I agree that clear channel is evil they have the right to air or not air whatever they want. Also if they are getting funed 750K I can't blame them.

I think you guys are missing my point.

Of course they have the right to air what they want. My point is that they are not airing stuff because the govn't is basically telling them that saying 'penis' and 'vagina' (or other equally innocuous things) on the radio is wrong.

<waits quietly in the background, waiting for Doug to arrive>

they are not airing stuff because the govn't is basically telling them that saying 'penis' and 'vagina' (or other equally innocuous things) on the radio is wrong.

[censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored]

huh.. I guess the same applies here?

Edit: Acutally, I do see your point since the "Government" is involved.... but radio networks as was mentioned before are profit driven so someone needs to draw the line don't they? Should 24hour porn, sex with various farm animals, Mexican Donkey Shows, child rape and anything else be just thrown on the airwaves with no regulation? Who draws the line? Corporations sure won't and will continuously push the envelope because they are purely profit driven.

I couldn't compare this to the Janet Jackson thing as Howard Stern himself did because when I tune into Howard Stern I *know* what to expect; when I tune into a football game I use to *know* what to expect.

And... I still don't see the discrimination in the presidents latest proposal since anyone is free to marry anyone else of the opposite sex providing they are of certain age (discrimination?) and not an immediate relative (discrimination?).

Yes, rules suck in general.

it almost makes you want to move to a free country....

And... I still don't see the discrimination in the presidents latest proposal since anyone is free to marry anyone else of the opposite sex providing they are of certain age (discrimination?) and not an immediate relative (discrimination?).

Give me a fucking break. If you are going to present a point, at least put a tiny bit of thought behind it.

30 years ago in the South, if I was black I was 'free' to marry another black, but not free to marry a white person. Think that might have been descrimination? Or would you like to go back to those good ol' days?

THIS IS THE SAME GOD DAMN THING!

Why are people so backward and ignorant? It drives me crazy.

Amendments to the Constitution are there to _give_ rights to people, not _take_ them away. If the amendment goes through (which it wont) it will be the first to take away people's rights as human beings. I will march my ass down to DC and scream at the top of my lungs that if that happens.


quote:

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: The constitution has often been amended to expand and protect people's rights, never to take away or restrict their rights. By endorsing this shameful proposal, President Bush will go down in history as the first president to write bias back into the constitution.

taken from this transcript of the Larry King Live show from February 24th. You all should read that transcript or find the video. San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom is a true American hero and patriot.

edited to add quote

Um, actually, the 18th amendment took away people's rights. But it took them from all of the people equally.

it didn't exactly last very long did it?

anyway, like you said it's not really the same thing.

30 years ago in the South, if I was black I was 'free' to marry another black, but not free to marry a white person. Think that might have been descrimination? Or would you like to go back to those good ol' days?
THIS IS THE SAME GOD DAMN THING!

?

BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Conservative blacks are objecting to recent comparisons between the gay marriage and civil rights movements, arguing that sexual orientation is a choice.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/11/28/gay.civil.rights.ap/

Gay politics is the child of the new political America. In a fashion quite the opposite of Dr. King - who challenged an unjust nation to return to the principles and traditions from which it had strayed - gay political operatives work to re-write our traditions to suit their own proclivities. They say their struggle is about equality, but it's really about the exercise of political power and claims for entitlement.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Parker20040112.shtml

A July CNN/USA Today poll found that far more blacks than whites condemn gay marriage.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16908

Blacks deny link in gay, civil rights
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031128-100829-9541r.htm

"The comparison with slavery is a stretch in that some slave masters were gay, in that gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution and in that they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote," Jackson remarked in an address at Harvard Law School.
http://uk.gay.com/headlines/5829

Concerned Women for America:
http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/coretta.html
"To compare rich, privileged homosexual lobby groups allied with transsexuals and sadomasochists to brave civil rights crusaders — who risked their lives to advance freedom — insults every black American who overcame real injustice and poverty,” said CWA President Sandy Rios...

Sigh.

1. "arguing that sexual orientation is a choice. " They're wrong. Being homosexual isn't a choice. Period. The shrinks all agree (well 95%+ of them anyway).

2. "In a fashion quite the opposite of Dr. King - who challenged an unjust nation to return to the principles and traditions from which it had strayed" ...such as Liberty and Freedom? Dr. King is a personal hero of mine, and it saddens me to hear his words twisted this way. King's speeches were silent on the issue. Consider the times.

But one of his closest friends and co-civil-rights campaigners was Bayard Rustin, a black gay man who was about as out as you were allowed to in those days (and even then harrassed by the FBI for it). He was also the chief organizer for the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, in 1963. You may have heard a little speech that Dr. King gave on that day about his dreams for the future...

3. "A July CNN/USA Today poll found that far more blacks than whites condemn gay marriage." So what? You'll probably find more blacks than whites are practicing christians (or at least practicing christians within the more conservative churces), percentage-wise. I'm not surprised of that statistic.

4."The comparison with slavery is a stretch in that some slave masters were gay, in that gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution and in that they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote," Jackson remarked in an address at Harvard Law School. " - sure, all of those assertions are true. On the other hand, you couldn't tell gays from the color of their skin. If they publically announced they were gay back then, they were soon dead in many parts of the country.

5. The CWA quote had me laughing my ass off. "allied with...sadomasochists". That was rich. Hoo boy. Hadn't had a chuckle like that since the whole "man on dog" thing.

-brendan

It just goes to show you, people never learn. The mistakes of the past just keep getting repeated over and over again. There always seems to be another group you can discriminate against, and even some members of the previous discriminated group take part in the new discrimination. Religious minorites, Indians, Irish, Jews, women, blacks...gays are just another group in a long history of intolerance.

It is all about the politics of hate, seperate out some small group, say they are taking over and are going to ruin the country and get all the sheep in line with you, and win elections. It has worked many times in this country, Bush is hoping it will work for him. He already manipulates people's fears and anger regarding terrorism, playing on people's hate is such a small step for him.

Edit: It always makes me smile when I hear someone insist that homosexuality is a choice, because for me, there is exactly a zero percent chance I would ever choose it. I like women too much, and the idea of making love with a guy is unpleasant, to say the least. For someone to say that it is a choice means, somewhere deep in their psyche, that they aren't all that convinced of their own heterosexuality. To believe that others can just choose to be gay means that you believe that you yourself could just choose to be gay. I think this explains some of the virulent hatred toward gays in some people; it is not all the other homosexuals they hate so much as it is their own secret homosexual tendencies they despise, and here is no hatred quite like displaced self-hatred.

He already manipulates people's fears and anger regarding terrorism, playing on people's hate is such a small step for him.

well said.

Conservative blacks are objecting to recent comparisons between the gay marriage and civil rights movements, arguing that sexual orientation is a choice (bold print mine)

I'd like to ask those "conservative blacks" when they made their choice to be black. Then I'd like to ask them when they made their choice to be heterosexual.

Choice. Yeah, right.

tanstaafl.

Clear Channel decides that they know what is good for us

Thank you government for sanitizing the airwaves

Make up your mind -- was it Clear Channel, or the Government?

(Hint: it's the Government that gets to set the rules...)

tanstaafl.

<waits quietly in the background, waiting for Doug to arrive>

Well, here I am.

ithoughti said: I would say that they just might be bowing to govermental pressures, and if that is the case, it's an entirely different ball of wax.

And why is that? The "rules", such as they are, have been long-established, and all the players in the game knew what they were. For years broadcasters have been pushing the rules, mostly to see just how far they could go. As it turns out, one of the Clear Channel stations found out, at a cost of 3/4 of a million dollars.

So, the Government deciding to actually enforce long-standing guidelines that were blatantly violated (blatant by the standards of the rules themselves) is a surprise? This constitutes Government interference and censorship?

Here's an idea: Why don't you protest the unfairness of the IRS by refusing to pay your income tax? You will have about the same degree of success doing that as a broadcaster would have trying to convince the Government of their first amendment rights to broadcast smut. I can assure you that Clear Channel (or any other broadcaster) is not going to expend resources fighting a battle where an unlikely victorious conclusion would only serve to alienate the core listening audience, and more importantly (yes, Bitt was right!), advertisers.

Remember that broadcasters operate by the grace and goodwill of the Government. Radio stations don't "own" those airwaves and frequencies; they are owned by the Government. Whether or not you think that is a good or bad idea is irrelevant to this discussion because it is the way things are at the moment! As such, broadcasters are required to toe whatever line the Government decides to draw in the sand.

I have nothing against smut, pornography, graphic pictures and dialogue, sexually explicit material -- whatever you want to call it. However, since that material is so so readily available from so many other non-Governmentally-regulated! sources (Internet; Cable TV; adult book stores; etc.) I don't feel the least bit deprived that the Government has decided not to allow it on THEIR airwaves.

tanstaafl.

And remember that Clear Channel has stated that they're not in the radio business, they're in the selling advertisements business.

Fair enough (actually, amazingly honest for that line of business...) Now, if only Microsift would admit being in marketing rather than software business.