Posted by thezippy at adel.iowalab.com on February 26, 2004 at 14:16:51:
In Reply to: as much as i hate censorship..... posted by DRD #37 on February 26, 2004 at 14:04:20:
: .....and as much as I disagree with what they did, they do have that right. They are an independent corporation with the right to censor and prohibit anything and everything they want to. The only real entity that has to adhere to First Amendment rights is the federal government. Since Clear Channel is an independent corporation and they set out the rules of conduct, Stern did do wrong by them and if he can't take the consequences, too bad. This won't exactly be the end of his career, you know.
Clear Channel's NEW policies are the direct result of NEW FCC guidelines issued in the wake of the Janet Jackson debacle.
So... if government regulation results in a private enterprise having to change its broadcast standards... then YES, that IS government driven censorship.
Clear Channel's recent acts can be DIRECTLY tied to government action. Hell, do you think its a coincidence that *today* the head of Clear Channel is testifying before a Senate committee on broadcast indcency?
: Do I agree with censorship placed on a show when it is played at an hour when children will most likely not have access to it? No.
Why not? Channel button on your radio broken? Just curious... do you think Kevin Smith movies should only be broadcast on cable tv channels when the kids will be in bed (10pm to 4am, I guess)?
: Do I think Clear Channel had the right to drop Stern for what he did? Yes.
Legally? Sure. See above, though, for comments on just how independent Clear Channel's motives were. And, just out of curiosity, what is it you think Stern did? Please be specific, as Stern apparently hasn't even been notified by Clear Channel what the specific offense was...
Zippy