Remember Freedom Of Speech?
You might not remember it for long. Jeff Jarvis has a great, rage-filled blog item on the squashing of Howard Stern by Censor Channel (uh, Clear Channel):
The more I think about this, the more enraged I get. One tit flopped out and the government -- the Bush administration -- can't wait to play to its far-right fringe and censor speech and intimidate speech and chill speech. How dare they? This is not the role we expect of our government. We don't need a nanny. Let's hear a little liberartarian outrage at government meddling in our lives and our speech. Let's hear a little conservative outrage at government growing beyond its bounds. Let's hear a little liberal outrage at goverment stiffling free spech. I don't give a damn whether you like or despise Howard Stern; that's beside the point. If you're American, you cherish free speech and you should be appalled at what is happening to it. This is not coming from media consolidation. This is coming from government intimidation. F Michael Powell. F the FCC. F Clear Channel. Defend Howard Stern. Or lose your own rights to say what you want where and when you want to say it.
If you care about your right to free speech, he (and I) suggest you speak up about it before it's a dim memory. Start by contacting the idiots at the FCC.
Here's my own e-mail to the lead FCC nanny, Michael Powell:
Not everyone in this country is a bible-thumper. Those who are have the freedom to change the channel or turn off the set. But not for long, right? What you're doing is an assault on the freedoms of all citizens of this country. I'm not a big fan of Howard Stern, but my fingers work -- I can tune the radio to a lot of channels besides the one he's on. What happened to the party of small government? Who crowned you nanny? You disgust and appall me, and I loathe the Democrats, but I'd vote for an orangutan before I vote for George Bush and the likes of you, you vile, freedom-sucking cur. --Amy Alkon
I have written a number of times on what I believe to be the most important battle going on today on our planet-science vs. superstition.
This battle of science, reason and rationality vs. theology, mythology and general insanity seeps into and pervades virtually everything we do. This is why it's so important.
Janet Jackson flashes the sum total of her talent, one of her terribly trendy pierced tits, and the flood gates open for the religiously-based backlash.
A few points. Why are tits forbidden to show?
religion. The TV tube awash with murder, almost every drama is based on a murder(Law and order, CSI etc.) but let one tit loose and the tit-catchers are out in force with their nets in hand.
Howard Stern has always been a mixed bag for me. On the one hand he is funny, is one of the few celebrities that openly lampoons the absolute idiocy of celebrity worship in this country, and gives his views on the news and sex. The thing that people miss with Howard is that his juvenile ramblings about sex are the way most males think. SO you are getting real insight into the male mind, for what that's worth.
My problem with Howard and his ilk are the same problems I have with Janet and her her jail-breaking tit, it has nothing to do with morality, or decency, it has to do with the dumbing down, the cultural genocide of Americans. In our popular garbage culture, you are fed a steady diet of sex, tits, violence, idiotic TV shows, music etc. that all serves to dumb down(if that's even possible) and therefore weaken humanity. Knowledge is power, intelligence is power, brains are power, and yet in this culture, intelligence is openly sneered at and ridiculed on TV and in music. The programming and music placates and kisses up to an idiotic, stupid, shallow, callow, classless, cultureless, gutless polulace. I could give many examples, but here's one. News anchors trim their vocabulary so that nobody in the audience will not understand what they are saying. We have to make these idiots feel good, instead of actually trying to impart some knowledge to them.
Of course I'm not for censorship, but Janet's great tit in the sky and Howard's commentary and all the rest of it, in my always humble view, serves to keep people wallowing in their own stupidity, looking down at their trendy puke-stained shoes instead of reaching for the stars.
One final thought. Some are debating this like we really had freedom of speech and the press to begin with. Technically yes, but in practice...
Amy and I debated this before, I would suggest that for the most part whether on TV or radio or in the paper, the vast vast majority of the people picked to do whatever it is they're doing, are company-store men and women who jump and bark when their masters tell them to. Look at the L.A. times for one example. A monolith of one way of thinking, one way of writing, one viewpoint(You vill conform or you are out) There is no diversity at the Times, no freedom of speech, no differing viewpoints. You follow the company store plan or you are out.
This is why Amy is so amazing to me, truly. When I first became aware of her I figured she was just another feminist P.C. smarmy dumbass writer who was in print because she played the game. And an advice columnist to boot. The dregs of what we refer to as "journalism." However I came to find out that Amy actually was smart, was a religious nonbeliever, knew that alcohol, for example, isn't a disease, but a behavior, was railing against women for having babies, and had a realistic view of relationships, definetly not your mother's advice columnist. That she has been able to do so well in this business is a testament to her and her abilities. I think she is an important writer, like say, Wendy McELroy, and one that needs to be heard by everybody, but especially women.
But who knows, today Janet's tit is after Howard, tomorrow will Janet's tit be smacking Amy in the face. I don't know, but I do like picturing it.
Chris
chris at February 26, 2004 9:46 AM
I am a religious conservative, but I am absolutely outraged that Howard Stern is being pulled. I couldn't care less for his show, but I am afraid of what the next step is. I have no desire to live in a totalitarian state, even if those in charge profess the same things I do. I'll be contacting the FCC too, for what little good it will do.
Peggy C at February 26, 2004 11:16 AM
"You disgust and appall me... you vile, freedom-sucking cur."
Um, is this a tad overheated? He (little Powell) did not actually poke a puppy in the eye with a stick, or casually murder a hobo. To our knowledge he hasn't yet suppressed any cures for cancer or other innovative ideas. If Powell is as bad as humanity can get, you live on Planet Paradise.
In the same sequence of posts, Jarvis notes that media distribution channels are more numerous and cheaper than ever before. You could run a competive cable TV network out of a rack of gear in your garage. In such a context, we shouldn't imagine that the occasional spooky memo sent to a popular vulgarian represents the gravest threat to enlightened discourse. (Jarvis speculates that Stern in particular could make a [another] killing in satellite radio, and put that medium on its feet.)
Many tax-payers don't like to see titty on TV, or hear intimate moments described on the radio. Their taste is different than yours, and the airwaves belong to them, too. Sexually free-spirited material is readily available from more sources than ever before. I see no reason to deny these (sexually) conservative viewers a little comfort in their own public realm.
I think conflating taste and decency is the second-greatest intellectual cancer at work in America today. (The first is some Postrelian appraisal of technocracy that I haven't learned to put in a sentence yet.)
Jarvis: "Let's hear a little conservative outrage at government growing beyond its bounds."
Didja hear Limbaugh this morning? (OK, silly question.)
Crid at February 26, 2004 11:30 AM
When do you get outraged, when you can't use the word "foreplay" in a newspaper? I got fired from a paper in Mississippi when Rev. Wildmon's people picketed the paper because I used that word. Fine that they picketed -- that's their right, and an appropriate way to rid newspapers of free-thinking godless harlots like me. But legislating "propriety"? No way. Hence the tone of my response and Jarvis'. What scares me now is the response of the people who commented on his blog, and your comment above: "Yeah, but it's nice to have propriety police for the sake of our culture." Parents should parent, not expect government to do it for them: turn the TV off or not allow it, and teach kids how to think and what good books to read. I wasn't allowed to watch TV as a kid, with the exception of Wonderful World Of Disney on Sunday nights. But my parents were the rule of law, not the government. So, people saw a little tit on the Superbowl. There's a lot of tit all over the place in France. I assure you, the French are not damaged by it, far as I can see; in fact, they have a much, much healthier approach to sexuality. Our country was founded by the Puritans, and they still have too strong a say over restraint of freedoms of the rest of us.
Amy Alkon at February 26, 2004 11:43 AM
A-fucking-men, Amy. The most salient point of the Janet Jackson uproar--beyond the usual disturbing implications of a woman's naked breast being considered more inappropriate than all the violence on TV nowadays--is that parents want the government to take over responsibilities that should be theirs.
I believe all those who expressed such outrage over the display of one breast should be forced to flip through some standard European advertisements and watch a few hours of European TV to put things in perspective.
This controversy apparently quantifies Bernardo Bertolucci's diagnosis of American "puritanism" in an interview of his I read recently.
M at February 26, 2004 12:18 PM
Forget not being allowed to watch TV. My parents didn't even OWN a TV when I was a kid (they both got one after they divorced, as a sort of consolation prize). This option never seems to occur to anyone.
LYT at February 26, 2004 1:48 PM
Amy, et. al.,
1) If you want someone to change their position, calling them "idiots" or "vile, freedom-sucking cur[s]" is probably not the optimal way to do it.
2) Mr. Jarvis is completely off base to characterize this as a "far right" or partisan issue. The issue of broadcasting "obscene" or "indecent" is not a partisan one. Democrats *and* Republicans both support the current move to increase broadcast censorship. Moreover, this has been the law of the land since the Broadcasting Act (as amended) was passed in 1934. The fundamental legal principle--which has been upheld by the Supreme Court in several decisions, most notably the 1978 "Pacifica" decision (George Carlin's "seven words" case)--is that broadcast media are "uninvited guests" into the house and, as such, that people (particularly children) need to be protected from such uninvited indecency or obscenity. Mr. Jarvis and you may not agree w/this position, but it's been supported by every administration, every Congress and every Supreme Court since 1934.
3) Since Bush 43 nominated him and the Congress of the United States "crowned" Mr. Powell nanny, it's pretty easy to argue that the man is simply doing the job that an *overwhelming* number of legislators are clamoring for him to do. I don't necessarily agree w/his positions or his actions--but they make absolute political sense. Are the FCC's actions cynical? Probably. Are they idiotic? Probably not.
4) Though I am not a fan of Mr. Powell, you could argue that he has actually been rather more progressive in promoting free expression on the air than any of the preceeding FCC Commissioners. At least under Powell the FCC has adopted the "safe harbor" doctrine which (in theory anyway) allows for radio broadcasters to transmit potentially indecent programming between the hours of 10PM and 6AM. The reasoning is that it is statistically improbable that children are listening to the radio during these hours and are, therefore, unlikely to be tainted by the indecent uninvited guest. This may be a minimal improvement, but it counts for something.
5) Mr. Jarvis is also incorrect when he says that this is not the result of media consolidation. In fact, the FCC's leverage over broadcasters has increased significantly w/the consolidation of media ownership following the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The fulcrum of this increased leverage is a little-known case known as the "Red Lion" decision. W/out going into the boring details, the "Red Lion" decision holds that if a company is an unfit broadcast licensee for one station, then it is an unfit licensee for *any* station. This means that the FCC could strip Clear Channel or Viacom or some other broadcasting behemoth of *all* its broadcast licenses for a screw-up at only one station. I may be naive, but I can't imagine that Viacom's or Clear Channel's investors would be particularly happy if they were to lose their (very valuable) broadcast licenses. Therefore, they're taking the FCC at its word and cracking the self-censorship whip on Howard Stern, Kevin & Bean, Tom Leykis, and Bubba the Love Sponge. From an investor relations standpoint, better to do that than risk forfeiting billions of dollars.
Bill at February 26, 2004 4:09 PM
I'm totally against any censorship of any kind, but leaving it up to the parents? That's the blind leading the blind. These parents are the same people that let their kids smoosh their ice cream on the windows at Starbucks that you wrote about. The parents? A collection of nitwits, boobs, fools, morons who only qualify as parents because they know how to copulate. The parents? The kids would be better off of they were separated from their parents.
The parents are going to teach them how to think and what books to read? A wonderful ideal, but in the real world it doesn't happen very often.
As i've written before, I don't blame the broadcasters, they can broadcast whatever they want. The problem is in ourselves, that we have a culture that laps up this garbage to begin with. The solution? It's not going to happen with censorship, the government or the parents. The only thing that will work is educating children from a young age to be strong, independent, and thinking for themsleves. This is accomplished by removing the one thing that starts them down the long road of submission, weakness and stupidity, religion.
Censorship=disaster, government=disaster, parents= worse disaster if possible. Only by educating children from a young age to think independently from institutions and parents will achieve the desired results.
But I'm not a utopian, while this would work, it isn't going to happen. And the reason? The second great problem with people. Not only are the hideously stupid for the most part, but they also lack the courage to do what needs to be done.
chris at February 26, 2004 4:15 PM
Bill,
I speak only for myself, naturally, but...
nobody needs your paternalistic semonizing about the kinds of language that we or I use. Yes I frequently refer to people as idiots, morons, clowns. Why? Because anger has seized me? No. I'm simply being honest. If it's a clear day and we walk outside, and you ask me the color of the sky, I'll say blue. Why? Simply becasue its the truth. When I refer to someone as an idiot this is my opinion of that person. If you don't approve, who cares? you say it's not going to change their mind? Gee who didn't know that. Would bowing and scraping before these exalted heads change anything? Of course not. You can play your civil, subservient diplomatic games if that is what you choose, but I will continue to call people whatever I choose to call them. I have no illusions of them changing their opinions in any event. In the end, you act just like the clear channel or the FCC, trying to regulate what is being said. This is what I want to say and I will say it in any way I choose to say it. Got it, Neville Chamberlain?
chris at February 26, 2004 4:33 PM
Chris,
Did I say anything about preventing you (or anyone else) from saying anything you (or anyone else) want to say in any way you (or anyone else) wants to say it? No. I merely said that if your goal is to actually change someone's mind, then you might not want to address them as "idiots" or "vile, freedom-sucking curs"--even if that's what you really think of them.
You may not believe that it's possible to change FCC policy regarding these issues, but I do. That said, I'm enough of a realist to know that this will be a long, uphill battle against opponents who are better funded, better organized, and have federal regulation and case law on their side. This means that I need to find allies wherever I can--therefore, I'm not going to alienate potential allies by refering to anyone as an "idiot" or as a "freedom-sucking cur"--and that I have to understand (if not respect) my opponents' position.
It's altogether too easy to talk like Churchill and act like Chamberlain.
Bill at February 26, 2004 5:15 PM
I understand their positions, this is why I call them idiots. I read your rationale, it's a fine one actually, and certainly would suit most people. Just not me. Being both strident and confrontational has suited me just fine in my life, I highly recommend it. You obviously believe that your way is the best way, I disagree. To each his own I suppose.
chris at February 26, 2004 5:35 PM
Actually, I don't think I can use reason to change Powell's mind -- I think he's firmly on the side of nannyism. I did think I'd let him know that I am, I hope, one of a number of people who are very angry at the current climate of restraint of freedoms in the Bush administration.
I am against censorship by Democrats or Republicans. Whether the party making the attempt to censor is Powell or Tipper Gore doesn't make a difference to me. The issue I'm passionately for is freedom of speech -- even if it's hate speech, or swearing. Again, people have the freedom to change the channel or not turn on the television...same as they have the freedom to skip past the butt porn aisle at the newsstand.
The airwaves have long since ceased being judged by how they meet the public trust of the days of the Fairness Doctrine, etc. The only area the government seems to care about, at least as far as I can see, is keeping dirty words and nudity off the air. I'm against that. In fact, I'd like to see more nudity -- including Janet Jackson's other breast.
Thanks for dropping by, Bill, by the way!
Amy Alkon at February 26, 2004 6:28 PM
>>your comment above: "Yeah, but it's nice to have
>>propriety police for the sake of our culture."
I said no such thing. I said that the public realm belongs to each and all, and your taste ought not reign supreme.
Crid at February 27, 2004 11:06 AM