BILL OF RIGHTS:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I would like to start by saying that I did not agree with the Janet Jackson half-time mis-hap. When you are tuning in to a "family program" you are expecting just that, not someone's boob flopping "accidentally" out of their costume. That was a complete shock and should have never happened. All that aside, I have an issue to address....
I'm more than a little pissed about the cancellation of the Howard Stern show. I am not a fan of the show, nor do I condone everything that he does on his show, but this does not change the fact that it's not right. However vulgar and disgusting this man may be, he is only expressing his opinion. I express MY opinion in my blog-- should IT be cancelled? And your argument will be "well, people can come and go on your blog as they please, and if they don't like it, they don't have to return." Exactly. If you don't like it, TURN IT OFF. If you know Howard Stern is BAD, why are you listening to him? This is insane! It is our First Amendment rights (as mentioned above) to say what we want when and where we want, as long as it's not inciting riot. I have seen no such Howard riot.
I read recently that the FCC and clear channel were just trying to ensure decent, family values in programming. What the FUCK is going on here? Has there been an amendment to the first amendment in which it says:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of decent, family values in programming, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I haven't noticed an amendment thus. So, pardon my redundancy, but that means that DECENT FAMILY VALUES IN PROGRAMMING IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!!! Free speech, however, remains a right to Americans. When did we start following the "new family values constitution" and stop following the "Actual constitution". I was just wondering.
Another good article on the situation
disclaimer (and really bad runon sentence): this in no way means i don't believe in decent, family values... it just means i cuss a lot and like to say what i mean and get pissed off when other people don't get to express themselves in our "free" country. :)
Michelle, while I wholeheartedly agree with you that it's freaking scary when the gov gets involved which our free speech rights etc., and that they should stay the hell away from them, consider that its also completely within the legal rights for Clear Channel to cancel Howard Stern for WHATEVER reason they want to, heck, they can do it purely on a whim. So we can't really get mad at Clear Channel for violating some kindof principal, because heck, they can go either way on the issue.
Further, consider that your definition of the "new family values constitution" is something that most of the "family values" folks consider to be what was intended with the "old constitution" and in fact, most folks up until very recently would have felt that "free speech" didn't include what they would consider to be "indecent content".
The actually "new constitution" people are "dynamic constitutionalists" (where I'd find myself) which see the application & interpretation of the constitution to be an evolving thing. For example: seeing "free speech" as something that allows for but doesn't condone (as in, isn't a *moral* document) Howard Stern. This is the new idea, NOT the "new family values" constitutionalists.
So here's the kicker: we're a "democracy" right? As in, rule of the people, or well, at least the majority of the people right? Well, if a majority of the people don't like Howard Stern are they allowed to put pressure on their government to, well, NOT like Howard Stern?
Idealy we might think that all they'd do was exercise their economic powers and not *buy* i.e. listen to Howard Stern, but its a far stretch to expect people to divorce their conceived morals from their politics. Especially since finding consistency along those lines is exceptionally difficult.
The argument was made back in the day during segregation that segregation was constitutional & states rights and all that crap. But people, moral people rightly saw differently and changed things.
I'm not saying that todays anti-howard stern people are correct, in fact, I for the most part find them wrong, I'm just saying that finding a clear cut line between the involving of personal morality & the powers of government & how you interpret & apply the constitution is a confusing, clouded, and difficult thing.
Which is why I'm glad we've got some damn smart supreme court justices who's lives are devoted to figuring all that out, even if I disagree with them sometimes.
Posted by: JosiahQ at April 13, 2004 08:35 AMno one said howard can't say what he says... certain people only said "we don't want him saying it on our networks"... and they're perfectly within their rights to do so...
so this is hardly a first ammendment violation... if someone said, he can't say what he says ANYWHERE, that would be a different story, but that's not the case.
Posted by: spoony G at April 13, 2004 09:51 AM