The Daily Stern
smart movie for samsung
: PORNOGRAPHER OPRAH: This morning, Stern tried to play a clip from the Oprah show yesterday in which they were doing exactly what Stern was fined for yesterday: defining sexual colloquialisms. Oprah defined "tossing your salad," Howard defined "David Copperfield." Oprah played it on her show. Jimmy Kimmel played the clip on his network show to make the point. But Stern's button-pushers hit the delay button when he tried to play it. Howard begged to play it: Let them fine Oprah as a pornographer. But they won't fine Oprah. They only want to fine Stern. Same statement, different mouths, different treatment. smart movie for samsung
I just bought the transcript of the Oprah show and here is what was said yesterday:
WINFREY: OK--so--OK, so what is a salad toss?
Ms. BURFORD: OK, a tossed salad is--get ready; hold on to your underwear for this one--oral anal sex. So oral sex to the anus is what tossed salad is.
Hi, Mom.
That is
exactly the kind of statement for which Stern was fined yesterday.
Exactly.
Here's the Stern transcript. And I quote:
HS: Well, a blumpkin is receiving oral sex while you’re sitting on a toilet bowl if you are a man. You’re sitting on a toilet bowl and uh, while you’re evacuating you receive your oral.
RQ: Ick.
Yeah, ick. But if it's icky on Stern, it's icky on Oprah.
Come on, Michael Powell, let's see you fine Oprah, huh?
And, by the way, the Oprah show gets much
more graphic. I'm not even telling you what a "rainbow party" is, and, believe me, it has nothing to do with the Rainbow Coalition. And don't tell me for one minute that this wasn't done to tittilate, sensationalize, shock, and entertain. It was.
So let's all complain: Send an email to Michael Powell --
Michael.Powell@fcc.gov -- or to tough guy Michael Copps --
Michael.Copps@fcc.gov -- and say: If you fined Howard, we dare you to fine Oprah. If it's offensive on Howard, it's offensive on Oprah. We dare you.
smart movie for samsung
: WHY NOW? Stern points out this morning that he has not been fined years (the story below says 1998 was the last). Suddenly, they dig up a three-year-old "sin" to fine him. See my take below.
Guest Mike Walker this morning said the net result is that the left now has a talk-show star and it's Howard Stern.
Walker also told Stern -- oddly, he didn't know it -- that his station in L.A., KLSX, is holding a rally this morning for him and free speech. Hello, L.A. bloggers: Coverage, please.
UPDATE: Stern said the "rally" is a walk put on by Larry Melrose Green, a member of the wackpack. Howard didn't know about it or authorize it and he would rather put on a decent event himself. smart movie for samsung
: THE PREQUEL: Stern starts the show off with a report on Courtney Love's out-of-control concert last night and says he will talk about the fine later in the show. "This is nothing. This is the prequel."smart movie for samsung
: FCCIBAN: I give you choice excerpts from the FCC rulings in this post and the one below. Ernie Miller of Yale F-ing Law School stayed up all night to analzye the FCC's decision to, for the first time, fine a broadcast as "profane."
This gives the FCC something to fall back on in case a court finds that "f-ing brilliant" isn't "indecent." Now the FCC argues separately, it's also "profane." But Ernie explains in detail how "profane" and "indecent" thus can't mean the same thing.
And so what does "profane" mean? It has meant blasphemy. But, as Ernie says, it's hard to imagine that in this day and age, a court would allow the FCC to regulate speech based on religious standards (well, we can only pray). So what words would be profane -- that is, patently offensive -- yet distinct from indecent -- that is, having to do with sex and excrement (i.e., the seven dirty words)? Ernie can think it's only racial epithets.
Thus, he asks, is the FCC with this ruling on Bono's F-word trying to broaden its authority to take in more dirty words, including hate speech?
Or are they just trying to cover their stupid, fat asses?smart movie for samsung
: F-ING STUPID: It's an f-ing spectator sport watching the FCC trip over itself trying to justify finding Bono guilty of f-ing indecency for saying "f-ing brilliant" at an f-ing awards show (PDF here):
conclude that use of the phrase at issue is within the scope of our indecency definition because it does depict or describe sexual activities. We recognize NBC’s argument that the “FWord” here was used “as an intensifier.”23 Nevertheless, we believe that, given the core meaning of the “F-Word,” any use of that word or a variation, in any context, inherently has a sexual connotation, and therefore falls within the first prong of our indecency definition.
And that is almost as much fun as watching FCC Chairman Michael Powell tapdance and push this political ruling while also trying to hold onto his Constitutional self-respect:
Going forward, as instructed by the Supreme Court, we must use our enforcement tools cautiously. As I have said since becoming a Commissioner, government action in this area can have a potential chilling effect on free speech. We guard against this by ruling when a clear line has been crossed and the government has no choice but to act.
We will continue to respect the delicate balance of protecting the interests of the First Amendment with the need to protect our children.
: BIGGER THAN NADER:
MTV news says Stern could be bigger than Nader in this election:
As the race for the White House gathers steam, there's a segment of voters suddenly drawing more attention than soccer moms or NASCAR dads: Howard Stern fans.
"[The Howard Stern vote] will have more of an effect than the Nader vote," said Matthew Felling, media director for the Center for Media and Public Affairs.
: THE LEWDERBOARD: The
Center for Public Integrity analyzed the
FCC's actions against so-called "indecency" since 1990 and as of yesterday (before last night's fines):
The Federal Communications Commission has proposed $3.95 million in fines for broadcast indecency since 1990, with half the total assessed to shock-radio pioneer Howard Stern and his employer Infinity Broadcasting.
Stern is No. 1 since 1990, despite not being assessed a fine since June 1998. The drought is expected to end soon, however. The Wall Street Journal reported about a dozen cases are being finalized and Stern is a target.
The FCC sought $1.96 million in fines from the stations that carried the controversial New York-based disc jockey's show since 1990, according to the analysis. The bulk of those fines were for shows broadcast between 1991 and 1993. Five separate actions were settled for a record $1.71 million in 1995.
Using FCC records and LexisNexis legal research, the Center for Public Integrity identified 72 broadcast indecency proceedings instigated by the FCC since 1990.
: NO, NOT VIOLENCE: Advertisers are
complaining to Congress about Fritz Hollings' add-on to the indecent indecency bill attempting to regulate violence, too:
Advertising trade groups on Wednesday urged Congress to reject anti-violence provisions written into anti-indecency legislation, saying the added language would turn federal regulators into TV critics and censors.
Well, yeah...
smart movie for samsung
: TWO-TO-ONE: Gamblin' man Bill Bennett weighs in on the story with a convoluted piece of drivel on Claremont's site that, I think, says he's against government censorship but he thinks fines aren't censorship, they're more like a tax on brothels. (Or gambling.) smart movie for samsung
: GET YOUR BURKA ON: Stern's site links to Rep Ron Paul's (R, TX) speech to the House against the indecent indecency bill:
This atrocious piece of legislation should be defeated. It cannot improve the moral behavior of U.S. citizens, but it can do irreparable harm to our cherished right to freedom of speech.
This attempt at regulating and punishing indecent and sexually provocative language suggests a comparison to the Wahhabi religious police of Saudi Arabia, who control the "Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice." Though both may be motivated by the good intentions of improving moral behavior, using government force to do so is fraught with great danger and has no chance of success.
Regulating speech is a dangerous notion, and not compatible with the principles of a free society. The Founders recognized this, and thus explicitly prohibited Congress from making any laws that might abridge freedom of speech or of the press.
But we have in recent decades seen a steady erosion of this protection of free speech.
: YOU'RE FINED: The Radical Cowboy sees a
link between the fines against Stern and Donald
Trump trying to own the phrase, "you're fired."
If you think the Trump and Stern stories are unrelated, they're not. On the one hand there's Stern, whom the government seeks to shut down on account of they don't like what he's saying. On the other hand there's Trump, who's seeking government permission to prevent people like me and you from using a silly two-word cliche in ways that might prevent him from making money. What they do, when they do this sort of stuff, is create two classes of people: Those with permission to speak, and those with permission to sit back, shut up, and listen.
: PREVIOUS DAILY STERN POSTS:
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here.
smart movie for samsung
