"T. Early" wrote in message
...

"CentralNJBill" wrote in message
...
Link didn't work but I might as well add my two cents. I don't like
most of
what Howard Stern does, but he has an opinion and adds to the public
discourse. You may not agree with him, but squelching his ability to
voice
his opinion--an opinion that's apparently shared by a legion of
fans--diminishes all of us.

His ban by Clear Channel is just another reason why corporations
shouldn't
have the ability to own so many broadcast outlets.


Clear Channel's ownership of so many situations may in fact be a
problem for the industry, but I have no clue why you think Stern adds
to the "public discourse. " While Stern has hopped on the
Bush-bashing band wagon of late because he got his wrist slapped, his
show for the past several years has been based on sex and pretty
juvenile attempts to titillate his audience. Apparently, he finally
pushed the envelope too far by discussing preferences in anal sex and
"endowment" length. So if you want to listen to Stern, fine. But
let's not makes this an issue of Stern being punished for having
opinions that add to the public discourse, like he's doing anything
more than trying to boost ratings by being crude. The way he's trying
to wrap himself in the First Amendment is nauseating enough.


It wasn't that long ago that television broadcasters would only show Elvis
Presley from the waist up; the fact that he gyrated his hips while dancing
was considered crude and "a juvenile attempt to titillate his audience." We
look back at that example of censorship today and think it's the silliest
thing we've ever heard of.

I don't choose to listen to Howard Stern, but I shudder to think that there
are those who are deciding for us what we are and are not allowed to hear.
While Stern, for you, is a comfortable target, who is to say that others
more near and dear to your heart may be next? Often the first step on the
slippery slope toward autocratic rule is censorship--others usually
accomplished that by burning books, but maybe we need to look at what
cutting "shock jocks" means in the larger scheme of things?