Blogcritics: Comments on FREE SPEECH - AS LONG AS YOU SAY WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO

Comment by sheri

Mon, 26 Apr 2004 04:58:28 EDT

Christopher did not even know about the Carver/Stern movie review thing, not unitl I brought it up here. And I must have been drunk to have made it appear as if I agreed with you on anything. Now go wank over your fave photo of Hitler.

Comment by Mac Diva

Mon, 26 Apr 2004 02:41:05 EDT

How are you getting all that out of such a short comment, Christopher? My point was simple: Jews, along with any other group, can be bigoted. You say you do see that. Good enough for me. Frankly, considering the rate at which some Jews are rushing to join the far Right, it won't be long before more insist on being Klansmen. Actually, it has already happened to an extent. There is at least one leader of a Klan organization who is Jewish, though he disowns his family now. The other Klan groups shun him.

Comment by sheri

Mon, 26 Apr 2004 01:48:37 EDT

Oh G=d, not this again.

Comment by dialektomat

Mon, 26 Apr 2004 01:43:40 EDT

For xxxs sake! Our whole life is dirty. Who is that moralist that decides how YOU should behave, and then, in the darkness of a Southern night steals public funds, molestes other people children, and rapes the soul of our society with his righteous demagoguery? We got to learn to think for ourself first and forever. http://www.geocities.com/dialektomat - visit this page and read Seven Rules Of Creative Survival.

Comment by sheri

Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:49:49 EDT

Hm. Now that you mentioned it, it does appear that way, Diva. And isn't bad publicity, publicity nonetheless? Why give him any publicity at all? Even if Stern does not sympathize with the Klan himself, when Carver is asked if he hates black people, and his seemingly heartfelt answer is that he just loves white people,I'm thinking that that could strike a sympathetic chord with quite a few people. Why give him a pulpit?

Comment by Christopher

Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:44:45 EDT

No, MacDiva, that's not at all what I said, and no you didn't really read that. Nowhere did I say Jews can't be racists. Please tell me where you believe you saw the phrase "Jews can't be racists" in anything I wrote. First of all, Jews are still targeted by the KKK - not "once." I don't think that anyone doubts that the folks in white hoods want to see a white, Christian nation. My point was that I doubt whether a radio host would sympathize with a group that would just as soon see him dead and his ethnicity eradicated. I wasn't making blanket statements about any ethnic group's "ability" to be racist or not - because I don't think such statements can be made. Sheri, I'm at a disadvantage because I generally don't listen to Stern, so I can't speak with any authority to the incidents you refer to. In general, it tends to be beyond my understanding how anyone could find Stern's pre-FCC battle schtick entertaining... and I certainly reject derogatory comments made about any group. (Individuals are obviously another story.) ;-) But I guess I feel like popular speech doesn't need to be protected; it's the unpopular and the stupid that the Constitution is set up to protect. And I guess that I think that in America, everyone should be free to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he's a racist idiot. I'd rather know who they are than have 'em hidden anyway. Just my opinion. MacDiva, I don't mind that you disagree with me - god knows that I'm not right often enough for people to need to agree with me. But I do mind that you put words and thoughts into my mouth, and ascribed an opinion to me that I do not hold, nor did I give any indication of holding. Think I'm wrong; that's fine. A lot of times, I am. But please don't presume to tell people what I think - especially when you're so far off from my opinion, and when you weren't in a position to know what my opinion was. I'll look forward to conversing with you all again - so long as I'm allowed to speak for myself. Have a good night, all.

Comment by Mac Diva

Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:55:10 EDT

(Scratching head.) Did I really read that? Christopher thinks Jews can't be racists. And, the reason given is that Jews were once targeted by the Ku Klux Klan, as were African-Americans. He can't be serious. . . . Oops! I forgot this is Blogcritics.

Comment by sheri

Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:15:42 EDT

I can see your point. But there are some who would beg to differ with you. Allowing him to use derogatory racist comments about blacks, such as "porch monkeys", and seeing entertainment value in that tends to be beyond some peoples understanding. And my boyfriend is Jewish, and he found it offensive.

Comment by Christopher

Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:32:18 EDT

Sandra, Thanks! I always wanted my own cult following! ;-) Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it. And Sheri, for the record, I've never approached this issue, not once in any of my postings, as a Stern fan. I don't usually listen to him, have only begun to recently as sort of my own personal flipping of the bird to Michael Powell and the rest who would tell me what I can and cannot hear or be entertained by. However, after reading your remark, I was cautious and curious, so I looked up "Howard Stern and Daniel Carver" on the net. And you're right - Carver has done movie reviews on Stern's show. But every review I read, every mention -- whether Stern was liked or disliked by the reviewer -- said the same thing... that Stern has Carver on the show and then he and the cast verbally abuse Carver mercilessly and basically make a fool of him on national airwaves. Do you really mean to tell me that you believe that a New York Jew has Klan sympathies? (The KKK would as soon lynch Jews as blacks, so I somehow doubt that.) Anyway, any time that someone provides a forum in which the KKK is belittled, I'm all for it.

Comment by Sandra Smallson

Tue, 13 Apr 2004 08:27:50 EDT

your-you are. Blame Bank holiday cocktails.

Comment by Sandra Smallson

Tue, 13 Apr 2004 08:25:56 EDT

Christopher:............But how dare you try to tell me what's acceptable for me to be entertained by?! Sandra: AMEN! Hallelujah! Hear! Hear! Christopher: If an image or expression is acceptable in certain circumstances but not others, when used by some people but not by others... if what makes an image or word objectionable is not the image or word itself but rather who uses it and in what context, then what else do you call it but restricting the expression or speech of those deemed unacceptable? Sandra: Are you the Messiah?:) I'm joining whatever cult your leading..so far, atleast. Debbie or somebody: "The entertainment industry did it to themselves by constantly trying to push the envelope, trying to be just a little bit trashier than the last time, put in a little more violence, a little more sex, show a little more skin." Christopher: So if this is so bad, so terrible, so objectionable to so many, then why do such stunts result in higher ratings? If being smuttier turned people off, then none of these tactics would work, ratings would drop, and the networks would be forced to rethink their approach to programming and content. But despite the hue and cry, the ratings keep going up. Despite the gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands, shock jocks and musicians and entertainers continue to be rewarded for such envelope-pushing actions. So somebody's got to be watching them. And that's why I believe that so much of this is posturing... we'll say that content is bad, but we'll sure watch it when we think no one's looking. Sandra: Good Jesus, a genius is revealed. I could not agree more. In fact, I agree with everything you have posted so far on this thread. The only exception being the one where Eric called you out. I agree with Eric that it is not necessarily the religious pushing these agendas. All this verbiage on either side can be summarised very simply. You can not legislate for what entertains different people and if you do not like it or value it, do not watch it or listen to it. It's as simple as that. The first step is realising it is JUST YOUR opinion..once you are there, the rest is a breeze.

Comment by sheri

Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:37:24 EDT

And the South stood aghast at the sheer hypocrisy of those who defend Howard Stern using their righteous reasons out one side of their mouth,while closing the other side to the fact that Howard Stern allowed movie reviews by Daniel Carver of the KKK, using burning crosses.

Comment by Christopher

Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:45:10 EST

Okay, Debbie... so the point about the SuperBowl halftime show is (relatively) agreed on. But no one is talking about fining Janet Jackson or the NFL or Justin Timberlake. This incident isn't being treated as an incident - it's being used as an entree into a much larger discussion. If this was about one incident, Jackson, Timberlake, CBS and the NFL would have been fined and it'd be over with. Unfortunately, it's being used as a wedge into a larger agenda. They're declaring war on the entire entertainment industry and bumping up fines on everyone - all acts. The chill effect is already happening; a station in LA already fired a reporter -- and then realized that they'd overreatced and tried to give her her job back. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/books/03/16/people.tsing.loh.reut/index.html) My point is that this has gone way beyond Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake's performance. It's gone beyond, it's already costing entertainment and news personalities their jobs, and an entire industry has been warned and bullied into compliance with the undefined whims of a few. And the chill effect is only beginning. When reporters and entertainers keep getting fired or their employers keep facing ridiculous fines, no one is going to say or do anything anymore that isn't utterly safe, boring, and bland. And while there may be those who enjoy such and environment, very little creativity ever came out of catering to the status quo. By the way, if the issue wasn't Janet's breast but was rather the whole performance, then why did you still have the show on long enough to see the end of it? Why not just change the channel until the game was back on? Was anyone forcing viewers to keep their remotes at their sides? Just curious. "If it was a medical show and showed a breast I wouldn't have a problem with it.....get it?" Ah, so this isn't about the content, it was with the way that the performer chose to use that content for expression? So in other words, we can see certain things as long as they are presented in "acceptable" contexts? Who gets to decide those contexts? And on what grounds will they be making those judgements? Now we're getting into my issue with this... in at least some cases, this is not about policing content... it's about policing intent or expression. It's about policing speech. If an image or expression is acceptable in certain circumstances but not others, when used by some people but not by others... if what makes an image or word objectionable is not the image or word itself but rather who uses it and in what context, then what else do you call it but restricting the expression or speech of those deemed unacceptable? "The entertainment industry did it to themselves by constantly trying to push the envelope, trying to be just a little bit trashier than the last time, put in a little more violence, a little more sex, show a little more skin." So if this is so bad, so terrible, so objectionable to so many, then why do such stunts result in higher ratings? If being smuttier turned people off, then none of these tactics would work, ratings would drop, and the networks would be forced to rethink their approach to programming and content. But despite the hue and cry, the ratings keep going up. Despite the gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands, shock jocks and musicians and entertainers continue to be rewarded for such envelope-pushing actions. So somebody's got to be watching them. And that's why I believe that so much of this is posturing... we'll say that content is bad, but we'll sure watch it when we think no one's looking. "to bring it into a sporting event without warning was STUPID....." Well, we do agree on that point. I'm not defending the performance or Jackson/Timberlake's decision. Ten seconds of rational thought would have sufficed to make them remember their audience.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:30:20 EST

It may well be a waste of time and legislation but at least it isn't malignant

Comment by Debbie

Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:29:34 EST

Christopher, You brought up some good points but: "Sure, they didn't change rules. But by jacking the fines up ten-fold, you're basically telling all but the biggest stations in the biggest markets that the price for airing any sort of content that runs afoul of the "powers that be" will be high enough to harm their business." Imagine, wanting them to follow existing laws, how outrageous! This wouldn't even be an issue except that they had to push the envelope and 'act out' in a public forum. "Debbie, I agree that the SuperBowl halftime show incident, intentional or not, was inappropriate -- NOT because a breast is all that big of a deal or something society must be ashamed of, but because there were lots of children watching the show, and the performers should have bore that in mind." It wasn't just a breast, it was the whole show of Justin treating her like a $2.00 whore, of rubbing himself up against her, of reaching across and ripping the 'bodice' off of her. If it was a medical show and showed a breast I wouldn't have a problem with it.....get it? It is the context, it is the 'time' and it is the 'place' it was displayed. I shouldn't have to worry about a halftime show during a football game simulating a 'rough sex' peep show!! PERIOD!!!!! EVER!!!!!!! "...and what they see by chance as they watch TV" That is what we are upset about, it was a halftime show at a football game.... If they had used common sense and not done it during a halftime show of a football game, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. I don't have HBO because of the type of shows they have, I do it on purpose because I have kids. I don't watch a lot of TV in the evening because I have kids and I don't want them watching the trash they have on TV these days. "And it probably means I'm going to have to limit the amount of TV they can watch and the times of the day during which they can watch. But you know what?" It won't make a difference because they are constantly trying to encroach on all programing.....even a football game!!!! Are you starting to see the problem, yet? I don't want a lot of limits on free speech either, but I don't want it to be 'anything goes' either. The entertainment industry did it to themselves by constantly trying to push the envelope, trying to be just a little bit trashier than the last time, put in a little more violence, a little more sex, show a little more skin. It would be bad enough if it was limited to evening hours and during shows where you were warned about the content, but to bring it into a sporting event without warning was STUPID.....

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:08:59 EST

"I think the higher fines are there to make the sanctions have some meaning for the huge corporations that control much of the broadcast media." As I said in another post, the present fines were only handed out 3 times last year. And when they did hand out fines to Opie and Anthony, those guys were subsequently fired. Doesn't this sound like a system that will work when and if it is used? I mean what else do you want to happen when these people get out of line? Fines that lead to suspension and/or firing. And the present fines accomplished this in a case with Infinity Broadcasting. So it is a waste of time and legislation.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:49:01 EST

as i understand it, the actual radio/tv personality can be fined directly. it'll basically result is removing from the air any personality who has even a chance of running afoul of the fcc....which is what the more conservative elements of the country want (or at least will be happy with) yea! it's 1950 again!!!! arent' things peachy!!!!

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 16 Mar 2004 11:47:53 EST

I think the higher fines are there to make the sanctions have some meaning for the huge corporations that control much of the broadcast media. As it was they were slaps on the wrist of very little consequence.

Comment by Christopher

Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:53:08 EST

Eric, you really don't believe that the higher fines aren't intended to have a "chill effect" on content, do you? Sure, they didn't change rules. But by jacking the fines up ten-fold, you're basically telling all but the biggest stations in the biggest markets that the price for airing any sort of content that runs afoul of the "powers that be" will be high enough to harm their business. Worse still, as Mark alludes to, the definition of "indecency" is not very clear beyond the seven dirty words... which gives a lot of people a lot of leeway to selectively prosecute or draw a very broad definition of indecency that covers their version of what they want on the public airwaves. The whole "this isn't an attack on the First Amendment, because you can say anything you want... we'll just fine you out of existence if you do" defense is among the more disingenuous I've heard in public discourse. Debbie, I agree that the SuperBowl halftime show incident, intentional or not, was inappropriate -- NOT because a breast is all that big of a deal or something society must be ashamed of, but because there were lots of children watching the show, and the performers should have bore that in mind. Unfortunately, the response we're seeing out of the sheep politicians - and frankly, out of much of the citizenry - is classic overreaction. This is like cutting off your hand because your finger itched. Sure, the itch is taken care of... but at what cost? My overarching issue still remains: who gets to decide what is indecent and what is not? I'm sorry, but the human body doesn't offend me and a breast just doesn't get me upset (though this is admittedly easy for me to say because I don't have kids yet). I am much more bothered by violence on television than sexuality... I dare say that when I do have kids, I will be far more concerned about protecting them from violent content than sexuality. But should I try to remove the Super Bowl from the air because I have issue with deliberately lining up 300 pound men to slam into each other, frequently drawing blood and often injuring one another -- sometimes very seriously? How about old Westerns that glorify violence while perpetuating racist stereotypes of Native Americans? Do I even have that right to make that decision for you, just because my attitudes toward what is indecent are different than yours? Or are we better left with you actively choosing what to not let your kids watch, and me actively choosing what not to let my kids watch? And yes, that's going to mean that I have to pay very close attention to what my kids watch, what they get interested in, and what they see by chance as they watch TV. And it probably means I'm going to have to limit the amount of TV they can watch and the times of the day during which they can watch. But you know what? I think that's as it should be. I guess I call that parenting. And if I'm not ready to do it -- if I want to instead have some board of people in Washington DC (who take their marching orders from a small but very vocal sect of moralists) just make those decisions for me and make it safer to just toss my child in front of television -- well, then I'd better think long and hard about whether I'm ready to be a parent. Just my opinion. Have a good day, all.

Comment by sheri

Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:44:50 EST

I made a reference in an earlier comment about a friend of mine who is Jewish. This same friend, a couple of years ago, wanted to approach a group of Muslims, and try to connect with them on some sort of human level. I asked him if I could accompany him, and his swift answer was, "If you do, I don't know you". I took that as a no answer, and I wanted to know why. His reply was... "What you are wearing would be considered provocative". He wanted them to be comfortable with him, and take him serious. I agree with you. Different people have different definitions of what they consider indecent. My only bone to pick was with the blame being put on the usual standby... southern people, with all the insulting descriptions that went with it :0). As for my view on the issue itself, it's the exposure kids may have to it. As for that...the bottom line, to me, is the parents. They are the ones who should be regulating what their children see in the home.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Tue, 16 Mar 2004 08:52:01 EST

my problem with this is that they're supposedly enforcing 'violations' that are not clearly defined. you know, what exactly is 'indecent'. howard stern may be 'whining', but i think he' got a valid point here.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 16 Mar 2004 08:49:16 EST

Debbie, everything you asked for is already in place - it has only to be enforced and that is what all thestink is about now: enforcement. there haven't been any new rules put into place regarding content, they are just upping the penalties for violations. I realize in theory the market should take care of this, but there are some areas where the public asks for help in being saved from itself. This is one of those areas.

Comment by Debbie

Tue, 16 Mar 2004 08:26:03 EST

Dirtgrain, "(I still can't figure out why the hell I bought a juicer.)" It's because you want to be in the great physical shape that good ole Jack is in at his age..... :~) It's not even that I want everything censored, I just want some rules applied. Like maybe, certain channels that show the smut and violence; or certain times it can be aired. Never, ever, ever at a football halftime show!!!!! I don't want it sprung on people as a surprise, it should be labeled up front so people can make the decision on whether they want to watch it. I don't think that these are 'over reaching' rules, I don't think that they trample any rights. It shouldn't be difficult to put these in place and it won't hamper anyone that wants to watch the 'smut and violence'.

Comment by Shark

Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:06:37 EST

The most profound realization of the early 21st century will be that the UnaBomber was right. And have a nice day!

Comment by Dirtgrain

Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:01:34 EST

There have been a lot of comments of this kind: "until the people decide. . . ." What is overlooked is that people are being manipulated by marketing, advertising and propaganda techniques. Coercion has become a science, and corporations are ever seeking new ways to turn the people into on and off switches (that is exactly how they see us). No, we haven't lost free will yet. But isn't that the ultimate goal of the marketing industry? Read some journals on marketing and advertising techniques--new studies abound. They want to be able to make you do what they want you to do--without you being aware of it. (I still can't figure out why the hell I bought a juicer.) With the rise of corporations and corporate political power, and the advancement of the science of coercion (and propaganda), I don't think the people will be deciding in the way some here have suggested. There has to be an organized effort to counteract the amoral impact of corporations on our culture. We have to wake people up. Adbusters, maybe. Yes, I truly believe this. Yes, you probably think it's over-the-edge looniness. Yes, I will check myself into a psycho ward, just as soon as I figure out which voice in my head I am supposed to listen to. Right now, William Shatner is trying to sell me Priceline or something. Please start singing "Mr. Tambourine Man" again. Yah Chris, I better turn off the TV.