Steff Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 I'm not a big fan of theirs, but this song - with some added Howard Stern comments in light of the issues he's facing - is by far some of the most powerful music I've heard in a long time. I encourage all of you - even those who are not Stern fans - to take a look at what's going on. Congress voted in a bill that is about to go to the Senate to APPROVE $500,000.00 fines, PER INCIDENT, for INDIVIDUALS, for things the Government deems inappropriate. This is a severe violation of the Constitution boys and girls. If this gets past the Senate... it's the end of our RIGHT to free speech folks.. http://korn.bhlabs.com/downloads/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldmember Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 no. you'll still have free speech, it'll just cost ya $500g's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 12, 2004 Author Share Posted March 12, 2004 Fast forward for indecency law Thu Mar 11, 7:00 PM ET SUSAN CRABTREE WASHINGTON (Variety) --- Legislation aimed at cracking down on trash TV and radio content came one step closer to becoming law Thursday. The House overwhelmingly passed the bill in a vote of 391 to 22, but not before shock jock Howard Stern's defenders slammed the effort as an election-year ploy to silence Bush bashers. If Congress can resolve thorny issues between the House and Senate versions of the bill, the Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites) will have the power to slap over-the-air broadcasters --- as well as on-air talent --- with a maximum $500,000 fine per indecency violation, up from $27,500. "This XXX smut stuff should never be broadcast on the public airwaves," Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chief sponsor of the bill, said on the House floor, referring to the content of FCC (news - web sites) complaints filed against radio broadcasters in the last year. "This bill is a credit to this institution and everyone who cares about the public airwaves," Upton added. "We send a message whether it be to the shock jocks, the deejays or the person with his finger on the button: We are going to make an impact, and we are going to let our families know that this stuff has to stop." The National Assn. of Broadcasters opposed the bill, as did the American Federation of Television & Radio Artists. NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton declined to react to the bill's overwhelming passage in the full House. NAB topper Eddie Fritts had said he prefers voluntary industry initiatives to government intervention when it comes to programming issues. He noted several steps the broadcasting industry has already taken to crack down on indecent programming and pointed to an upcoming NAB summit, skedded for March 31, where he predicted the industry would agree to more positive measures. House GOP leaders denied an attempt to add language to the bill that would have placed a one-year hold on the FCC's controversial new media ownership regs. Earlier this week, critics of big media in the Senate saw the popular indecency legislation as a golden opportunity to return to last year's messy media-concentration issue, when Congress worked for months to tighten many of the new regs that allowed media congloms to grow even larger. Those lawmakers attached language to the Senate indecency bill, placing a one-year moratorium on the FCC's ownership rules. The hold would provide time for a government study to determine whether there is a link between allowing TV and radio companies to gobble up more stations and a sharp rise in indecency incidents. The House passage puts extra pressure on the Senate to hold a floor vote, but so far GOP aides said there is no hard time frame. The inclusion of the media ownership provision could set up a showdown with the House, whose leaders have indicated they will work to jettison the language when the two chambers hash out the differences between the two bills. Despite the lopsided bipartisan vote in favor of the legislation, several Democratic lawmakers blasted the bill as a direct attack on the First Amendment and charged that Republicans and the Bush administration are trying to rally the religious right and their conservative base just as the presidential campaign shifts into gear. "Never did I think that defending the Constitution would be such a lonely job on the floor of the House of Representatives," said Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.). "I believe in decency, I believe in Mary Poppins and all things nice, but I'm more concerned about the concentration of the media into so few players." Ackerman went on to charge President Bush (news - web sites) with using his bully pulpit to intimidate the media into submission for political gain. He also accused Clear Channel Communications of doing the White House's bidding when it decided to dump Stern from six stations. Ackerman was echoing a complaint Stern has made on the air this week. Stern has repeatedly argued he was yanked because he had once supported several Bush positions, including the war in Iraq (news - web sites), but recently changed his tune after reading Al Franken's book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right." "What's obscene is officials lying about weapons of mass destruction and not providing enough money for education," Ackerman railed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 While I think it would be better if some of these shock jocks, tv people and movie people cleaned up the content and language of their shows a bit, I don't agree with the amount they want to raise the fines. I also do not want to revert to the 1950s either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 While I think it would be better if some of these shock jocks, tv people and movie people cleaned up the content and language of their shows a bit, I don't agree with the amount they want to raise the fines. I also do not want to revert to the 1950s either. The problem with this is that, with the ratings he gets, it's obvious that the PEOPLE don't have a problem with Stern's level of lewdness. Isn't government's primary function to act on behalf of the people's wishes? And that's not even the point. The scary thing here is how a radio DJ that speaks unfavorably about the president is yanked off the air, coincidentally only in markets where Bush needs a strong showing to win the election. Where was this uproar back when Stern was supporting the president? And if his show is so indecent, why is he not taken off in all markets? And what credentials does Michael Powell have to decide what is and isn't indecent? All this is sickening. There's lots of young'uns on this board, and I encourage them all very strongly to help vote Bush out in November. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 12, 2004 Author Share Posted March 12, 2004 And what credentials does Michael Powell have to decide what is and isn't indecent? None. Zip, zero zilch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 And that's not even the point. The scary thing here is how a radio DJ that speaks unfavorably about the president is yanked off the air, coincidentally only in markets where Bush needs a strong showing to win the election. Where was this uproar back when Stern was supporting the president? And if his show is so indecent, why is he not taken off in all markets? I don't disagree in the least with what you have said, my comment was more towards the raising of the cost of the fine. To be honest, I don't know one person who likes Stern's show - and those people range in age from 21 - 50. So while he is getting ratings, there are still many people out there that don't like him. My only point is that I do think things are a bit over the top now (what is considered as ok, etc). I see how much more is acceptable now than was just 10 years ago, what's it going to be like in another 10 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 12, 2004 Author Share Posted March 12, 2004 To be honest, I don't know one person who likes Stern's show - and those people range in age from 21 - 50. So while he is getting ratings, there are still many people out there that don't like him. He has 18 MILLION listeners and is NUMBER ONE in EVERY market he's in. Oh.. I like him so that's 1 you know of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 12, 2004 Author Share Posted March 12, 2004 Here's some information on Powell. http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/powell/ He has absolutely NO education or experience in Communications other than this appointment.. and from his "photo gallery".. he's a REALLY busy guy.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 12, 2004 Author Share Posted March 12, 2004 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. -- First Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 To be honest, I don't know one person who likes Stern's show - and those people range in age from 21 - 50. So while he is getting ratings, there are still many people out there that don't like him. My only point is that I do think things are a bit over the top now (what is considered as ok, etc). I see how much more is acceptable now than was just 10 years ago, what's it going to be like in another 10 years? Sure, there are lots of people that don't like him, but we live in a democracy(at least, for now) and Stern's ratings indicate that a MAJORITY of people are OK with the degree of "indecency." If the PEOPLE were so outraged at how inappropriate Stern's show is, then why does he have 18 million listeners? I agree that some of things that are talked about on his show are not appropriate for younger children, but I think the harm they can cause is greatly overstated. I also think that, while the gov't has some responsibility to protect the general public, I just don't agree with the way in which the current administration is going about doing it, nor do I agree with the levels it wants to set. For example, discussing "excretory bodily functions" would be considered indecent. Gross?, maybe. Indecent?, hardly. I certainly don'y want gov't censoring the discussion of a bodily function that is common to every human being on the planet starting from birth. Just because some people think it's disgusting does not make it even close to subject matter that would be potentially harmful to children. It's poop for f***'s sake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 I'm not a big fan of theirs, but this song - with some added Howard Stern comments in light of the issues he's facing - is by far some of the most powerful music I've heard in a long time. I encourage all of you - even those who are not Stern fans - to take a look at what's going on. Congress voted in a bill that is about to go to the Senate to APPROVE $500,000.00 fines, PER INCIDENT, for INDIVIDUALS, for things the Government deems inappropriate. This is a severe violation of the Constitution boys and girls. If this gets past the Senate... it's the end of our RIGHT to free speech folks.. http://korn.bhlabs.com/downloads/ Keep on voting Republican...if you don't care about having ANY personal freedoms!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Sure, there are lots of people that don't like him, but we live in a democracy(at least, for now) and Stern's ratings indicate that a MAJORITY of people are OK with the degree of "indecency." If the PEOPLE were so outraged at how inappropriate Stern's show is, then why does he have 18 million listeners? Actually Stern talked about that in his movie 'Private Parts' (that was the name, right?), they listen because they want to know what antic is next. For the record, people I know that don't like him, don't like him because they find his show boring after a few days - it's the same topic over and over and over again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 12, 2004 Author Share Posted March 12, 2004 Keep on voting Republican...if you don't care about having ANY personal freedoms!!! Hmmm... where is it that I stated that I voted republican... ? :headshake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 12, 2004 Author Share Posted March 12, 2004 Actually Stern talked about that in his movie 'Private Parts' (that was the name, right?), they listen because they want to know what antic is next. For the record, people I know that don't like him, don't like him because they find his show boring after a few days - it's the same topic over and over and over again. Fan.. that was from when he first went on NBC - and Howard didn't say it.. it was a quote from NBC execs. A decade ago. He's been NUMBER ONE for a decade. From 7 million listeners in 1992 to 18 million (give or take a few several hundred thousand) in 2001. Funny... they don't like him yet they listen day after day to know that it's (supposedly) the same thing over and over again.. which, by the way, it isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Funny... they don't like him yet they listen day after day to know that it's (supposedly) the same thing over and over again.. which, by the way, it isn't. I tried listening to him for a couple weeks and for those two or three weeks it was the same thing over and over again. To each their own. As for radio, I can't say I care too much what a dj says because I can change the station or throw in a CD. Lately I have been frustrated with morning radio because between the gjs yammering on and on and the over-abundance of commercials, there isn't much music being played. I would throw in a CD, but with the route I take to work I need the traffic reports - like this morning's accident - right by the exit I usually take. The reports came in and I changed my route and got to work early. If the current reports about the accident are accurate, my sympathies go to the trucker mostly and the family/friends left behind by the idiot that was driving the Mustang that killed himself and another passenger and sent a third to the hospital in critical condition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 12, 2004 Author Share Posted March 12, 2004 If the current reports about the accident are accurate, my sympathies go to the trucker mostly and the family/friends left behind by the idiot that was driving the Mustang that killed himself and another passenger and sent a third to the hospital in critical condition. Current reports are that the driver lost control of the car... perhaps it was not their fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Current reports are that the driver lost control of the car... perhaps it was not their fault. The current reports that I read are that the driver was going at a high rate of speed and bounced off of a wall into the path of the oncoming truck - that the trucker couldn't have done anything, it all happen too fast. There were also radio reports about the driver possibly being drunk, but that was what a few co-workers heard, I can't say I did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 12, 2004 Author Share Posted March 12, 2004 The current reports that I read are that the driver was going at a high rate of speed and bounced off of a wall into the path of the oncoming truck - that the trucker couldn't have done anything, it all happen too fast. So the driver of the mustang jumped the median wall...? We're they not both traveling the same direction..? That's the last news report I heard anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 So the driver of the mustang jumped the median wall...? We're they not both traveling the same direction..? That's the last news report I heard anyway. No, they said the driver was speeding (when cops say high rate of speed I take that to be in excess of 80-90 mph) and bounced off of the side of the wall that is by the Higgins offramp. The pictures are gruesome that are on ABC and NBC. To be completely honest, I travel past there every morning on my way to work and have done between 70-80, you have to be well above that, sleepy, high or drunk to lose control at that speed in that area. If the driver was faster than that, the driver is to blame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 12, 2004 Author Share Posted March 12, 2004 Here's the story.. nothing about speeding as of yet. Maybe a tire blew.. http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/031204_ns_route53_fatal.html The fatal accident claimed the lives of two people and also very seriously injured one other individual. Northbound lanes on route 53 near Higgins remained closed during much of the morning rush as crews and investigators continue to deal with the aftermath of the crash. The accident actually happened around 3:30 Friday morning. Illinois State Police investigators say a Mustang carrying three individuals, a man and woman and another individual, somehow the driver lost control, slammed into a wall and then veered into the path of a semi that was also traveling northbound. The car became wedged underneath that semi. By the time crews arrived on the scene they had to stabilize the semi and then pull it off of the car to try to free those individuals trapped inside. Both the man and the woman died at the scene. The other individual was airlifted to Loyola University Medical Center. With all northbound lanes on Route 53 closed down, traffic backed up to the Route 53 and I-290 split. For those of you not familiar with the area that's four or five miles at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Here's the story.. nothing about speeding as of yet. Maybe a tire blew.. http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/031204_ns_route53_fatal.html The fatal accident claimed the lives of two people and also very seriously injured one other individual. Northbound lanes on route 53 near Higgins remained closed during much of the morning rush as crews and investigators continue to deal with the aftermath of the crash. The accident actually happened around 3:30 Friday morning. Illinois State Police investigators say a Mustang carrying three individuals, a man and woman and another individual, somehow the driver lost control, slammed into a wall and then veered into the path of a semi that was also traveling northbound. The car became wedged underneath that semi. By the time crews arrived on the scene they had to stabilize the semi and then pull it off of the car to try to free those individuals trapped inside. Both the man and the woman died at the scene. The other individual was airlifted to Loyola University Medical Center. With all northbound lanes on Route 53 closed down, traffic backed up to the Route 53 and I-290 split. For those of you not familiar with the area that's four or five miles at least. Here's the NBC story - note the statement 'high rate of speed': Fatal Accident Snarls Route 53 Illinois State Police District Chicago Trooper Charles Bradley said the car was traveling at "a high rate of speed," just south of Higgins Road, northwest of Elk Grove Village, when it "hit and bounced off a wall," placing it right in the path of the truck. The truck hit the vehicle, pinning it underneath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 12, 2004 Author Share Posted March 12, 2004 Here's the NBC story - note the statement 'high rate of speed': Fatal Accident Snarls Route 53 I suppose anything over the posted speed limit would be labeled as "a high rate of speed". I drive 65 to 80 mph on 55 every morning when traffic allows. It's the flow of traffic. I assume at 3 in the morning there wasn't much traffic to contend with, and I admit that if I'm out at that time I will drive as fast as I feel comfortable with to get where I am going. Regardless, so far all indications are that this is an accident, and hopefully the 3rd passenger recovers fully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Regardless, so far all indications are that this is an accident, and hopefully the 3rd passenger recovers fully. I hope it does turn out to be just an accident (just an accident might be easier for the surviving person and the families and friends of the victims to cope with this tragedy) but a mustang+3:30AM+'high rate of speed' says something else to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 12, 2004 Author Share Posted March 12, 2004 I hope it does turn out to be just an accident (just an accident might be easier for the surviving person and the families and friends of the victims to cope with this tragedy) but a mustang+3:30AM+'high rate of speed' says something else to me. Probably good that you're not a traffic accident investigator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.