Stern v
Stern v. fccStern v. FCC
Love him or hate him, Howard Stern is the “King of all Media”. In twenty controversial years of radio, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has fined Howard Stern a sum of some 1.7 million dollars. The FCC has been trying to curtail Howard Stern’s free speech rights and they should not be. On several events (mostly early in the show’s history) Howard Stern has used language that was considered “vulgar” and “inappropriate”(FCC). However, Howard Stern uses these “vulgarities” to make a point and not for show. So Howard Stern should not be banned or censored on account of his radio show.
In referring to the case of The FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, the FCC was granted the “power to regulate radio broadcasts that are indecent but not obscene”(essay). What does this mean exactly? According to the government it means that the FCC can only regulate broadcasts. They cannot censor broadcasts, that is determine what is
offensive in the matters of speech (essay). Pacifica was a radio station that in 1978 aired a twelve-minute monologue by comedian George Carlin. This twelve-minute monologue called “Filthy Words” consisted of, according to Carlin, ‘words you couldn’t say on the public airwaves’ (qtd in essay). This caused one of the most controversial cases in the history of broadcasting. It would then set the standard of what could and could not be said on radio.
It is clear that much of the Stern content is outside of the example of disallowed content embodied in the Pacifica ruling. On the other...
To view the complete essay, you be registered.