Stern Taken Off Radio in Six Cities

[MrRant 0]

This is not what most Americans want. This is unfortunatley the vocal minority at work again.

[Highland 0]

I believe the theory of "silent majority" is used when anyone complains about the content of any show. Thus indeed one irate caller can bring down a popular show enjoyed by millions.

[Slayer 0]

But the next question is: If this select minority is kowtowed to, will they be satisfied or will they just move on to find something else to complain about and ruin for everyone else

 

Also, who is it that is offended by this type of thing anyway? I'm trying to avoid pigeonholing this as purely a fanatical religion thing or bitter old people thing, but those are the only type of people I can think of who be offended by such things.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Marvin, Stern and Robin were saying life wasn't exactly easy for them under the Clinton regime, either.

[MrRant 0]

But the next question is: If this select minority is kowtowed to, will they be satisfied or will they just move on to find something else to complain about and ruin for everyone else

 

Also, who is it that is offended by this type of thing anyway? I'm trying to avoid pigeonholing this as purely a fanatical religion thing or bitter old people thing, but those are the only type of people I can think of who be offended by such things.

Well think of it this way... the MAJORITY of people don't say anything for a few reasons (they don't care, don't have time, don't know how to get voice heard etc) while the minority is generally an organization that does nothing but voice their opinions (Religious Right, etc) and know where to go and since those are the only voices that the politicians/corporations hear they base things on that since the only Americans speaking out are the minority.

 

 

I think that made sense... if not... I'm on Sudafed so kinda fucked up.

[Slayer 0]

Well think of it this way... the MAJORITY of people don't say anything for a few reasons (they don't care, don't have time, don't know how to get voice heard etc) while the minority is generally an organization that does nothing but voice their opinions (Religious Right, etc) and know where to go and since those are the only voices that the politicians/corporations hear they base things on that since the only Americans speaking out are the minority.

 

 

I think that made sense... if not... I'm on Sudafed so kinda fucked up.

Sadly, that made too much sense

 

But that didn't answer my question of WHO is it that's offended

 

Here's a small list I can think of so far:

 

Feminists (morseo for Stern)

Uptight religious people

Bitter old people

Uptight parents

 

 

Of course, the latter two could fall under the religion spectrum too, but again, I'm trying to see if there's any other cause to protest against "adult" talk shows

[MrRant 0]

It's more of IMO people not wanting to accidently see this stuff. As in I wouldn't want to be sitting there with my daughter watching the SB and see a tit.. granted it wasn't really that much, so you have the uptight parents/religous people with a perfect... in I guess that lets them say... "We just want to protect American families".

 

Which is fine. I don't want there there to be porn on in the middle of the day either that my daughter could watch and I agree with how (barring the East Coast feeds on the West coast) that the Skinemax stuff doesn't start till at least 10PM and some shows have to start around 9ish because of content. That is perfectly acceptable to me because most kids say... 7-12 are in bed by then.

 

These people have some issues with their 11 year old listening to a Top 40 radio station and then turning the dial and coming across Stern describing lesbians masterbating in Jello with mixed fruit.

[Slayer 0]

Meh, I never understood the whole "WE HAVE TO SAVE THE CHILDREN~!" mentality, having been a child seemingly not too long ago. I was sexually aware at a young age and even by the age of ten saw much worse than a lone still-mostly-covered breast, and this is in spite of growing up in a fairly uptight Catholic household (which I'd say "damaged" me worse than anything of a sexual nature) in the conservative 80's...

 

...and here I am, perfectly fine

[MrRant 0]

You also aren't a parent. Things change. Some things about what I thought changed.

[Slayer 0]

You also aren't a parent.

The simple blanket counterargument.

 

I was trying to point out the potential child's perspective whilst growing up

 

Some things about what I thought changed.

I didn't even know up until this point that you had a kid, and am somehow surprised by the fact

[Guest FrigidSoul]

Mr. Rant has a kid? You just know during the child's rebelous years its gonna listen to Janis Joppelin, wear tye-dyes and not shower.

 

Anyways I bet a large group voicing against this kind of stuff are Mormons. My mom knows some mormons and they think you're a pretty bad person if you use the word hell other than in its biblical form(telling somebody to go to hell doesn't count as good form).

[Mole 0]

I think this just shows where our country is going.

 

We have a war in Iraq, Social Security might be dropped, our economy is in the shits, people are living on the streets, and kids are being beaten by their parents day after day.

 

But what is the Gov't spending a lot of time on? A women shows her breast on TV and everything goes up shit's creek. Now the FCC is putting in all of these fines against the people who say/do things wrong on radio or television.

 

What is the big deal? Maybe it is because I am only 20 years old and nothing really offends me. If you don't like something CHANGE THE CHANNEL. If the big problem if the younger audience is watching/hearing something they shouldn't be, that is the parents job, not the Gov't to regulate it.

 

My mother didn't allow me to watch certain things when I was younger, and if I wanted to see a movie that was graphic she would see it first to see if it was okay to watch. Was it hard to do? Nope, she was being a good parent and I think that is the best way to raise a child. Let the parents do it, not the Gov't. I will do the samething with my children because I want to raise my kids, let them hear or see, what I believe is okay.

 

If Howard Stern talks about a woman's sexual abbits, so what. There is MUCH worse things than this, so lets work on those, not this.

 

Plus, what year are we in? Last time I checked it was 2004, and I thought that stuff like this isn't a big deal. But, I guess it is because the country is just WAY to uptight.

[MrRant 0]

You're a moron Mole.

[Highland 0]

He's a moron for making valid points in his post?

[Mole 0]

You're a moron Mole.

Okay, since everything I said was true?

[geniusMoment 0]

You know its funny that in other countries, such as England, children can watch stuff such as this and it does not ruin them. In america it turns children into monsters, must be something in the water.

[MrRant 0]

His points have no validity on what is really happening here and what the true concerns are of the average American parent. You should expect certain things so that way parents don't have to watch over their kids like a hawk.

 

When I was a child my parents didn't really have to worry because these things didn't come on at all. There was nothing like Chappelle's Show in 1991. There also wasn't the need for most middle class American families to have 2 incomes. When I was growing up that wasn't the case so that means that as a parent you have less time to be involved in everything that your kid is watching compared to just 7-10 years ago.

 

The fact of the matter is this... things like Chappelle's Show start at 9/10PM etc because of the fact that most children are in bed so the language etc isn't at issue as much as during the middle of the day having Howard Stern spouting off about something that kids really shouldn't hear.

 

HBO etc are different because they are paid channels so you get what you pay for.

 

Granted parents should be taking more advantage of features such as the V-CHIP, parental controls in cable/satellite boxes and the like as well.

 

And those of you who don't have children and keep saying that America shouldn't be uptight about these things... I agree to a point and the point is we shouldn't be uptight about the SHOWS but uptight about WHEN they are on. I love Chappelle's Show but I would be offended if it was on during the early afternoon and then I walked into the living room etc and saw my kid watching it. CHILDREN don't need to be watching Chappelle's Show. I'm going to repeat it for those that are slow.... CHILDREN shouldn't be watching that show. 16-18 year olds? I don't really have an issue with it but I don't think a 2nd grader should be watching the show and then go to school lay on the reading couch in the libary and "Fuck yo couch nigga" to the librarian... funny as it would be.

 

If you argue that... like Mole does... then indeed... you are a moron.

[Guest SP-1]

I more or less agree with Rant here. Children simply do not process things the way adults do. They can't. Simply because one is, say, sexually aware at an early age (and I'm not singling you out, Angelslayer, it's merely an example), does that mean the child will understand or properly handle this new awareness? No. Being sexually aware at an early age is how we get 11 year old girls getting pregnant. Which, if you're going to argue that such a thing is good for society then I don't have the time to listen to you any further. It's ludicrous.

 

I wouldn't want my kids seeing Janet's nipple during the SuperBowl. I don't want to see that. Nor do I want Howard Stern teaching them useless and stupid language and ridiculous behavior early in the mornings.

[geniusMoment 0]

Actually in countries where children are sexually aware and are taught the human body is a beautiful thing sexual crimes are way down, as is teen pregnancy. By making sex something forbidden you are doing nothing but enticing children, especially if you do not teach them about it at all. If I had a child I would not mind if they saw Janet Jacksons breast, I would simply say that is a human breast. What is wrong with it, what makes a breast any different than an arm or leg? Its skin covering bone, blood and fat.

[Guest El Satanico]

Far too many Americans spout off "we must protect the children" as if it's some sort of solution or answer.

 

Too bad all the efforts to "protect the children" have failed to help. Despite being in the era of increased attention towards "protecting the children", Kids are more violent and sexual active than ever.

 

Clearly "protecting kids" has proven to be utterly worthless in this day and age. With this level of success, exposing and explaining couldn't be any worse and would stand a good chance of working better.

[Bored 0]

How many kids (as in elementry school age) listen to the radio beyond when they are in a car with their parents? How many kids actually want to listen to the radio over watching television when they are at home? I seriously doubt too many kids ever listen to Howard Stern.

[Guest El Satanico]

How many kids (as in elementry school age) listen to the radio beyond when they are in a car with their parents? How many kids actually want to listen to the radio over watching television when they are at home? I seriously doubt too many kids ever listen to Howard Stern.

Not as many as I'm sure Clear Channel would like you to believe.

 

Besides most young kids are just going to hear blah blah blah before begging for the channel to be changed.

[MrRant 0]

That isn't the point.

 

The reason kids are move violent is to be honest because you can barely spank a child without possibly going to jail... not beat... spank. You light the cats tail on fire and get a time out? That's bullshit. A swift smack on the BUTT will probably stop that from occuring again.

 

The sexual thing is probably for the most part the same except media coverage is 10x what it used to be. 14-16 year olds were fucking and getting pregnant when I was in school too.

 

Taking a 11 year old and having them watch porn and explain it to them isn't going to do much I'm afraid.

[Mole 0]

His points have no validity on what is really happening here and what the true concerns are of the average American parent. You should expect certain things so that way parents don't have to watch over their kids like a hawk.

 

When I was a child my parents didn't really have to worry because these things didn't come on at all. There was nothing like Chappelle's Show in 1991. There also wasn't the need for most middle class American families to have 2 incomes. When I was growing up that wasn't the case so that means that as a parent you have less time to be involved in everything that your kid is watching compared to just 7-10 years ago.

 

The fact of the matter is this... things like Chappelle's Show start at 9/10PM etc because of the fact that most children are in bed so the language etc isn't at issue as much as during the middle of the day having Howard Stern spouting off about something that kids really shouldn't hear.

 

HBO etc are different because they are paid channels so you get what you pay for.

 

Granted parents should be taking more advantage of features such as the V-CHIP, parental controls in cable/satellite boxes and the like as well.

 

And those of you who don't have children and keep saying that America shouldn't be uptight about these things... I agree to a point and the point is we shouldn't be uptight about the SHOWS but uptight about WHEN they are on. I love Chappelle's Show but I would be offended if it was on during the early afternoon and then I walked into the living room etc and saw my kid watching it. CHILDREN don't need to be watching Chappelle's Show. I'm going to repeat it for those that are slow.... CHILDREN shouldn't be watching that show. 16-18 year olds? I don't really have an issue with it but I don't think a 2nd grader should be watching the show and then go to school lay on the reading couch in the libary and "Fuck yo couch nigga" to the librarian... funny as it would be.

 

If you argue that... like Mole does... then indeed... you are a moron.

I see your point and it makes sense.

 

I just see it as parents should be the ones who say what a child watches/hears, not the Gov't. It worked for me, and my mother and father were great at it, and I didn't turn into a "monster." My sister is doing the same thing with her kids, and they are turning out great. To me, parents don't have to be hawks, but just raise your child correctly.

 

Something I find ironic is when Janet's nipple was being shown. It was during a football game, which is a very violent sport. Men hit each other, as hard as they can, just to get them on the ground. Isn't violence just as worse as nudity to some people?

 

No. Being sexually aware at an early age is how we get 11 year old girls getting pregnant.

I see it completly different. Where is an 11 year old girl having sex? Most likely at someones house, so where were the parents when this went down? I know when I was younger, I wasn't allowed to have any girls in my room. When I have children, they won't be allowed to have the opposite sex in their room with the door closed, because something might happen like that.

 

I guess it all comes down to how you were raised. The way my mother and father raised me, worked out perfectly. I didn't have sex till I was 17 because my mother and father sat me down and talked about sex. Just because I knew about sex when I was younger didn't make me go out and fuck the first girl I saw.

 

That would be like saying if you know about drugs, you will go out and do it right away. My niece, who is 12, won't touch ANYTHING that has to do with being a drug. I can't let her I know I smoke because she will cry. When I took out a book about beer at the library when I took her there, she cried later because she thought I was a drunk. Just because you know about something, doesn't mean you will go out and do it.

 

I wasn't allowed to watch rated R movies until I was 15. I was able to see a few rated R movies when I was younger, but that was only at friend's houses where their parents allowed them to watch it.

[Guest El Satanico]

If a kid is lighting animals on fire a spanking isn't going to correct the mental problem that child has.

[MrRant 0]

That is why I said again. A kid may do it just to see what happens at the age of 7 or so.

 

 

But I agree that we are protecting kids way to much... but that doesn't apply to this IMO this mostly has to do with people don't think its a good thing to have on in the middle of the day.

 

The real "protecing kids harm" is coming psychologists saying that playing tag lowers a kids self esteem so they should't do it and that playing dodge ball hurts the kids self esteem as well.

 

Look at school... you can't even have NAIL CLIPPERS because they assume you may stab someone because of one story of one kid going whacko like it means that most of are kids may do that as well. It doesn't happen.

 

Think about the fact that we make sure we have a zero tolerance policy against nail files but if you kid is failing all his classes... well... he may just need an alternative school so that way he doesn't "feel bad" because he may get held back.

 

Psychologists and their ilk have made it so that kids should never feel bad about failing classes or failing at anything for that matter. Pretty soon they will eliminate basketball in PE because the losing side may feel bad all the while making thousands of dollars selling you their book on how to make sure your child is always happy because if not you are a bad parent.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

The worst thing is that I see this trend continuing, and the government is going to eventually find away to control content on the internet. Because honestly, whats on the internet is 10,000x worse than whats on Network primetime that most kids aren't even watching anyway. Its not going to take long.

[Slayer 0]

Far too many Americans spout off "we must protect the children" as if it's some sort of solution or answer.

 

Too bad all the efforts to "protect the children" have failed to help. Despite being in the era of increased attention towards "protecting the children", Kids are more violent and sexual active than ever.

 

Clearly "protecting kids" has proven to be utterly worthless in this day and age. With this level of success, exposing and explaining couldn't be any worse and would stand a good chance of working better.

Of all the things said since I posted last night, this is the one I agree with the most

 

America's concept of "saving the children" has done nothing

[Mole 0]

Far too many Americans spout off "we must protect the children" as if it's some sort of solution or answer.

 

Too bad all the efforts to "protect the children" have failed to help. Despite being in the era of increased attention towards "protecting the children", Kids are more violent and sexual active than ever.

 

Clearly "protecting kids" has proven to be utterly worthless in this day and age. With this level of success, exposing and explaining couldn't be any worse and would stand a good chance of working better.

Of all the things said since I posted last night, this is the one I agree with the most

 

America's concept of "saving the children" has done nothing

Yes, because you can't "save" America's children like that.

 

It is up to the parents to do anytype of "saving."

[Guest FrigidSoul]

I don't think a 2nd grader should be watching the show and then go to school lay on the reading couch in the libary and "Fuck yo couch nigga" to the librarian... funny as it would be.

Thank you for giving me possibly the greatest laugh I have had in well over a month.

 

Thing about today's youth compared to yester-year's youth is children really have no fear of their parents. 12 years ago when my mom said "Keep it up and I'll tell your father when he gets home" I would be scared shitless, because that meant possible ass-whoopin time. She tells my 11 year old brother that and he whines "Noooooo" and then just continues to do shit because he knows my mother won't let my father whap him a good one now. I don't advocate beating a child but a spanking or two when they are young, yet old enough to remember it will keep them from really defying the parents. I stopped listening to my parents as soon as my mother told my father he could no longer hit me.

 

I blame Social Services becoming way out of whack in the early 90s for this happening on a country scale. If a child was spanked and it left a mark then OMG ABUSE~! and the child was shipped off to a foster home.

 

So basically you have Social Services taking the right to spank a child and instill the fear of god in said child should they break the rules, and the FCC doing their best to take edgey material away because kids won't listen to parents anymore because they know if the parents do anything they can cry abuse to the school guidance councelor.