I'm not a big fan of government censorship, but people who like Howard Stern who say "if you don't like it, turn it off" are missing an important point.
Stern routinely criticizes the government's indecency policies, saying they are arbitrary and fail to reflect that anyone who finds his material objectionable can simply change the channel.Mr. Stern has a very romantic view of himself, but the fact of the matter is that the airwaves are owned by the public, and we shouldn't have to "turn it off". We own the frequencies, and we license them to you."I could blow my stack. I'm trying to be cryptic," he said. "To tell you the truth, I don't know what's going on. They are so afraid of me and what this show represents."
Actually, no one owns the airwaves; the government decided to nationalize what should have simply been homesteaded and granted government monopolies.
Phelps: That's an unworkable idea. The public "owns" radio frequencies just as much as we "own" the land and air of America (hence immanent domain).
By that logic, maybe we should just get rid of that pesky First Amendment altogether. After all, many of the trees cut down to make newspapers are grown on public lands, and if "we own the trees," maybe we should tell people what they can and cannot print on them.
Or we can take Stern's sage advice, listen shows we like, not listen to shows we don't like, and leave well enough alone. Your call.
Xrlq: Trees and electromagnetic radiation are entirely different, as I'm sure you realize. That's not a very good strawman.
Technically, they're completely different. Non-technically, they're not different in any meaningful sense. It's not as though a person not listening to the radio was physically harmed by radio waves passing through him. And if he was, it would have zero, zip, nada to do with the content of what is being broadcast.
Trees: can be physically possessed; exist at discrete locations; can be "used up"; but there are so many that if I use paper to write one message, it doesn't preclude you from using other paper to write a different message.
Radio frequencies: intangible, cannot be physically possessed; potentially exist everywhere, and interfere with broadcasts in different locations; cannot be "used up"; limited in supply, such that I can use one to send otu my message, and thereby deprive you of the same opportunity.
Which is all the more reason to direct these limited resources toward wherever the market is. To divvy them up any other way is, effectively, to argue that "we" own the airwaves, therefore, I get to tell the rest of "we" what they can or cannot hear.
In any event, we're not exactly running out of bandwith. Even in L.A. or N.Y., there's plenty of static on the dial where other stuff could be broadcast but isn't. Newer technology allows multiple broadcasts even on a given frequency. That's why the "limited bandwith" argument, if it was ever legitimate, is certainly not legitimate now.
Xrlq:Ah, but the public has the right to seek non-mentary profit, just as any owner does. Just because you could make more money turning your house into a motel doesn't mean that's what you should do. Similarly, just because Howard Stern gets a lot of listeners, if the owners find it more valuable to "protect society" from his broadcast than to make money from licensing fees (which, to the best of my knowledge, don't share Stern's profits with society) that's our right.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter, considering he wasn't censored by the government, but by Clear Channel.
Making a judgement call of what is correct and what is not correct by one person or one groups opinion is unhealthy. Why would I want to be denied what I enjoy because someone else views it as bad or immoral. When one group has its viewpoint as the only viewpoint available, that is tyranny and the last time I checked, this was still a free country. My morals, my taste are not necessarily my fellow citizens but that makes them no less valid. My healthy moral compass is not denigrated by someone elses words. Like someone said freedom must be fought for and I view any censorship as an abridgement of my rights as a human being to choose what I will. And, in these times of the demonization of dissent I will dissent all the more. To not do so is to deny the very essense of my spirit. Those who would crush that spirit are myriad in this world and the battle rages.
Regards
Burnie