From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Howard Stern
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 17:55:22 GMT

In article <92358.142002FDMWINK@UCF1VM.BITNET> <FDMWINK@UCF1VM.BITNET> writes:
>
>gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>
>>In any event, it is my opinion that the FCC has no business concerning
>>themselves with content.  I may be insulted or angered by what is said,
>>but I don't see the difference between freedom of speech in the park
>>and freedom of speech on the radio.
>
>Well, let me help you out there, Gilbert.  Howard and I (and you also) have
>equal, unfettered access to the park but not to the radio (or TV).  Howard
>and I have the right to freely express ourselves in the park or, if we have
>the urge, buy a printing press (or equivalent) and freely make fools our
>ourselves at our leisure.  Why, if we lucky enough to know it exists and
>how to use it, we can plug into the Internet and have a ball with Usenet
>newsgroups,or Fidonet echoes, or whatever.  But, while Howard can get his
>jollies on the radio or TV, I (and presumably you also) do not have equal
>access.
>
>And equal access is the key.  Since the electromagnetic spectrum can only
>(given the current technology) be cut into so many piece, the Federal
>government has asserted its _responsibility_ to regulate the "air waves" as

It has assumed this "responsibility".  This is quite different from being
given this responsibility by the public.  I personally did not delegate
any of my freedom of choice to another person, let alone a government
agency.

>a public trust.  (I believe this is done under the Interstate Commerce
>clause of the Constitution and has been upheld by the Supreme Court.)  So
>contrary to your statement that the FCC has no business regulating the "air
>waves", they, in fact, have a responsibility to do so.

I would wonder how many people reading this would delegate that responsibility.
Further, for those that would, I wonder if they would do that in all cases,
or just to censor those that they don't agree with at the time.
>
>You also seem to be implying (you did use the word "content") that the FCC
>is attempting to censor the "ideas" (used loosely here) that Howard is
>presenting.  I would appreciate some examples of the "ideas" that Howard is

This, as you know, is irrelevant.  I consider Stern to be a colossal
asshole, with little to say to me about anything.  But that is my
opinion.  That's all.  And another opinion of mine is that much of what
is wrong with this country (speaking USA, here) is exactly what is right.
Freedom means responsibility, and responsibility often means making your
own choices as to what you hear.  I might even bend so far as to admit
that billboards should be controlled because it is sometimes difficult
to avoid being exposed to them.  But even in that case, I probably wouldn't
bend far.  The radio, it seems to me, is rather easy to tune and shut off.

>being prevented from discussing "on the air."  IMNSHO Howard's basic
>problem is a lack of an adequate vocabulary.  I would be happy to support

And, so what?  By this criteria, we should get rid of professional
"wrestlers", most entertainers, half the people on the net, etc., etc..
That is also an opinion, and while I agree that Stern is an idiot, that
is also merely My Opinion.  And, judging from his apparent success, I'd
say that I'm in the minority.

>Howard's right to express any "idea" he may wish to express but I have no
>desire (or responsibility) to support his lack of a proper education.

What is your criteria for a "proper education" that is sufficient to
allow him access to the radio waves?  Do you have names to submit for
a panel?  Or is that the FCC?  Apparently I wasn't paying attention when
the votes were cast.
>
>Howard (or rather the people who employ him) have $$money$$ with which they
>lease the right to use certain frequencies.  They do this to make more
>$$money$$.  They believe, and they very well may be right, that the best

Yes.  I believe we're all aware of the money thing in entertainment.
What's your point?  Does it make them evil?

>way to achieve this is to play to the lowest common denominator in our

Unbelievable!  Really?  Non-intellectual entertainment for the masses?
In THIS country?!?  No way!!!   :-)

>society.    Personally, Howard does not offend me - he bores me.  It is

Ditto.  Now, if I were able to deny someone's rights to anything because
they bore me, take a guess at what percentage of the population would be
nervous at this moment?

>simply a shame when people confuse greed with freedom.

Capitalism is the right to compete for material things, wealth, priviledge,
etc., etc..  How much would one want to be considered "greedy" rather than
successful?  Is this sour grapes?  I sure as hell am not qualified to
judge.  And, yes, I do get pissed off when I see people become successful
at something that I think takes no talent or brains.  But this is an
immature emotion, and I have no right to take action.  Only give my
opinion.  Freedom can be a bitch.  Then you die.  So what?

>
>P.S.  I knew and respected both Mario Savio and Lenny Bruce, Howard Stern
>is neither.

I knew neither, didn't necessarily respect either, don't think Howard Stern
is significant in any way, and the world doesn't give a crap about my
opinions a lot of the time.  The Constitution may very well be protecting
a lot of the world from the opinions of cynical people like me.  And I
think that's the lesser of two evils.

The biggest danger of people like Stern is that when the population hears
an idiot spouting "ideas" on the air, it lends them credence, and a large
segment of the population, being basically sheep that do not want the
responsibilty of making their own decisions and forming their own opinions,
and "thinking with their hearts" and merely throwing up their hands and
saying, "Oh, that's a mystery!  I don't want to peer into the veil of
God's Plan, or to argue with my 'feelings', or go against the 'majority',
or...."  etc., etc., and basically shunting responsibility to others to
think for them.  I admit that's a problem (and a long sentence...).  But
as bad as it is, I prefer it to the alternative.  I think the longer 
people are allowed to defer thinking to others, the worse they'll be at
it.  Call me idealistic, but I'm basically an ameliorist.  I believe things
are and have been getting better.  And I believe that with freedoms come
responsiblities, and with responsibilities comes maturity, and with
maturity comes more general happiness for all.  Subjective, I admit, but
that's my opinion.
>
> --Larry Wink
> Internet: fdmwink@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu <or> ljw@pro-magic.oau.org
> Bitnet: fdmwink@ucf1vm     Usenet: bbs-phaedrus@jwt.UUCP     GEnie: l.wink
>    "Liberty means responsibility.  That is why most men dread it."
>                                     -  George Bernard Shaw

Good post, Larry, BTW.  But, in closing, let me say that the quote above
is a good thing to consider in light of your post.

GMS
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa