Protest Against Clear Channel "Hate Radio"

[valkyrie777]

Get A Clue

Freedom of speech carries responsibility as well as limits:

There is NO "freedom of speech" to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. The ability to speak freely also carries with it the burden and the onus to speak responsibly; "hate-speech" satisfies neither requirement.

As we have all been taught since childhood...just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we SHOULD do something. Claiming "freedom of speech" simply to shout epithets at another human being is a pretty lame way to claim that freedom, isn't it?

Think about that one.








> Let's take a look at the First Amendment to the United
> States Constitution:
>
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
> abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
> right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
> the Government for a redress of grievances."
>
>
> So, if these nuts want to take away certain people's freedom
> of speech, then let's take away their right to assemble in
> front of the CC building. After all, what's fair for the
> goose is fair for the gander. I'd stand up for their right
> to protest the same way I stand up for the talk jocks to
> give their opinion, no matter how unpopular.
>
>
> ...oh, wait, "Goose" and "Gander" are not politically
> correct terms...perhaps some geese are really ganders, and
> some ganders are really geese. It would be just plain wrong
> to hate those ganders because they'd prefer to be
> geese...damned Republicans! We are entitled to an America
> where geese are free to be ganders, and ganders are free to
> be geese, and no member of the avian race should be hated
> because of their sexual preference!
>

 

[thebroker]

Re: Get A Clue

I'd love it if you show me in the Constitution where freedom of speech is qualified with the 'burden and onus to speak responsibly'. You won't find it. Freedom of speech, by it's very nature, gives the speaker the right to say anything he wants without being censored by the government.

I agree wholeheartedly that folks should be responsible with their words. However, I still defend their right of a person to say whatever is on his/her mind.

Are you implying that we should apply a standard to freedom of speech? And if so, who sets that standard? I'm sorry, but I do not want you or anybody else setting the standard for freedom of speech. I'm not particularly fond of liberal drivel, just as many liberals are not too fond of conservative rhetoric. If we begin to qualify freedom of speech at any level though, it is both possible and probable that our freedom to speech of any sort will eventually be eroded.

Let's face it, it is simply not possible to speak politically without offending somebody. And, some people interpret anything offensive as hateful as well. Do you really want a society where folks are afraid to speak their minds because 'hate speech' is not tolerated?

 

[mwebster]

Re: Get A Clue

Think about it yourself. The line about fire in a theater is from a Supreme Court decision uphold the World War I Sedition Laws, which made it illegal for anyone to criticize the war or to criticize the government or any official in any way.

Freedom of speech is absolute or meaningless.

"No law means 'no law'." - Justice Hugo L. Black.

Have you actually listened to any of the shows being protested?

 

[Infidel]

Re: Get A Clue

> Do you really want a society where folks are afraid to speak their
> minds because 'hate speech' is not tolerated?

Um, we're practically there. Agreed free speech should be free, sedition and treason laws notwithstanding. If you try to stand up for the laws on the books and you don't support illegal and or deviant behavior, some will call you "mean-spirited" but WHERE is the hate speech? For example, someone doesn't agree with a host who doesn't want illegal aliens here breaking the law and freeloading benefits, and somehow that's hate speech?

 

[kaufcom]

Re: Get A Clue

> I'd love it if you show me in the Constitution where freedom
> of speech is qualified with the 'burden and onus to speak
> responsibly'. You won't find it. Freedom of speech, by it's
> very nature, gives the speaker the right to say anything he
> wants without being censored by the government.

What are you talking about. Is this some kind of libertarian drivel?

Courts and legislative bodies (federal, state and even local) have made extensive rulings regarding limits to "free speech."

We already identified the Supreme Court ruling that you can't say "fire" in a crowded theatre.

You can't make libelous or slanderous statements.

You exhibit pornographic images or statements over the air

You can't use the famous seven words that George Carlin over refers to in his comedy bits.

There are lots of examples of limits on free speech in our society.
<P ID="signature">______________
http://talkingradio.blogspot.com/</P>

 

[mwebster]

Clueless

>
>
> Is this some kind of libertarian drivel?
>

Is this some kind of politically correct drivel?

>
> We already identified the Supreme Court ruling that you can't say "fire" in a
> crowded theatre.
>

We already identified the Supreme Court ruling that "no law means no law."

-----
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[k9ez]

Re: Get A Clue

> > I'd love it if you show me in the Constitution where
> freedom
> > of speech is qualified with the 'burden and onus to speak
> > responsibly'. You won't find it. Freedom of speech, by
> it's
> > very nature, gives the speaker the right to say anything
> he
> > wants without being censored by the government.
>
> What are you talking about. Is this some kind of
> libertarian drivel?
>
> Courts and legislative bodies (federal, state and even
> local) have made extensive rulings regarding limits to "free
> speech."
>
> We already identified the Supreme Court ruling that you
> can't say "fire" in a crowded theatre.
>
> You can't make libelous or slanderous statements.
>
> You exhibit pornographic images or statements over the air
>
> You can't use the famous seven words that George Carlin over
> refers to in his comedy bits.
>
> There are lots of examples of limits on free speech in our
> society.
>


And rightfully so, as with freedoms there are responsibilities.

 

[thebroker]

Re: Get A Clue

You can't say "fire" in a crowded theater because you'll endanger the lives of others. If I yell fire, and some fella gets trampled, I'm responsible for that poor guy's injury. This is no different than if I just walked up to the guy and pimp-slapped him. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, but rather the fella's right not to be trampled or pimp-slapped. Your rights stop when exercise of them begins to infringe upon the rights of someone else. This is the REAL standard and limiting factor.

You certainly can make libelous or slanderous statements until your heart is content. However, you'll have to suffer the consequences if the person you slander sues your drawers off. To make protection from slander more stringent, it would be necessary for the free speech of everybody to be screened before you say them aloud. We all know this is impossible and insane.

When you say 'over the air', you apply a standard not related to freedom of speech. Broadcasters are granted use of a public asset, the airwaves. Therefore, limitations can be applied here when it comes to porn or profanity. If I stand on the street corner and shout profanities, I'm using my own voice to relay the profanity. If I shout profanities into a microphone attached to a transmitter, I'm using the public's resources to relay the dirty words. When you are a licensee of a radio or TV station, you are expected to be a responsible steward of that bandwidth. To compare this to actual freedom of speech is equivalent to comparing apples to oranges.

Let's apply my standard of limitations to the alleged 'hate speech' the protesters are fussing about. we have the right to freedom of speech so long as the exercise of that freedom doesn't infringe upon the rights of somebody else. Since we have absolutely no constitutional right to not be offended, and since we have no protection from hate, there's no way we can conclude that hate speech could legally be limted. If you examine it closely, constitutional protection applies to alleged hate speech whether we like it or not. Period, paragraph.

 

[kaufcom]

Re: Get A Clue

I thought this was radio board not "civil liberties" or "constitutional law" board. The thread were on deals with whether some people in San Francisco have a right to challenge a radio station's license because of alleged "hate speech." The speech included alleged racist, anti-immigrant, anti-gay, and anti-human broadcasts made by KNEW talk radio personalities Michael Savage, Bill Bennett, Bill O’Reilly, and Jeff Katz. Then you offered the following post:

“I'd love it if you show me in the Constitution where freedom of speech is qualified with the 'burden and onus to speak responsibly'. You won't find it. Freedom of speech, by it's very nature, gives the speaker the right to say anything he wants without being censored by the government.”

Now your claiming that you are not talking about radio, but what some blowhard may yell on street corner without a megaphone.

I think you are making your post on the wrong board.

Let me suggest www.newsmax.com


> You can't say "fire" in a crowded theater because you'll
> endanger the lives of others. If I yell fire, and some fella
> gets trampled, I'm responsible for that poor guy's injury.
> This is no different than if I just walked up to the guy and
> pimp-slapped him. It has nothing to do with freedom of
> speech, but rather the fella's right not to be trampled or
> pimp-slapped. Your rights stop when exercise of them begins
> to infringe upon the rights of someone else. This is the
> REAL standard and limiting factor.
>
> You certainly can make libelous or slanderous statements
> until your heart is content. However, you'll have to suffer
> the consequences if the person you slander sues your drawers
> off. To make protection from slander more stringent, it
> would be necessary for the free speech of everybody to be
> screened before you say them aloud. We all know this is
> impossible and insane.
>
> When you say 'over the air', you apply a standard not
> related to freedom of speech. Broadcasters are granted use
> of a public asset, the airwaves. Therefore, limitations can
> be applied here when it comes to porn or profanity. If I
> stand on the street corner and shout profanities, I'm using
> my own voice to relay the profanity. If I shout profanities
> into a microphone attached to a transmitter, I'm using the
> public's resources to relay the dirty words. When you are a
> licensee of a radio or TV station, you are expected to be a
> responsible steward of that bandwidth. To compare this to
> actual freedom of speech is equivalent to comparing apples
> to oranges.
>
> Let's apply my standard of limitations to the alleged 'hate
> speech' the protesters are fussing about. we have the right
> to freedom of speech so long as the exercise of that freedom
> doesn't infringe upon the rights of somebody else. Since we
> have absolutely no constitutional right to not be offended,
> and since we have no protection from hate, there's no way we
> can conclude that hate speech could legally be limted. If
> you examine it closely, constitutional protection applies to
> alleged hate speech whether we like it or not. Period,
> paragraph.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
http://talkingradio.blogspot.com/</P>

 

[kaufcom]

Re: Clueless

It wasn't nice to flame me after I said something favorable about you.

"The Premiere numbers use total housholds not ratings. Of course, Franken would be heard by more radio listeners because he has the best time periods -- 9 am -12 noon, Schultz has 12 noon to 3 pm slot (no drive time) and Springer has 6 am to 9 am slot (some morning drive) and less total coverage than Franken and Schultz. I have to agree with Webster on this one. AAR will be better off if they get rid of Franken. However, I would pick Bill Press over Thom Hartmann as his replacement."

See my reply to The Broker's post above to understand my position on this so-called freedom of speech issue.

> > Is this some kind of libertarian drivel?
> >
>
> Is this some kind of politically correct drivel?
>
> >
> > We already identified the Supreme Court ruling that you
> can't say "fire" in a
> > crowded theatre.
> >
>
> We already identified the Supreme Court ruling that "no law
> means no law."
>
> -----
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
> abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
> right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
> the Government for a redress of grievances.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
http://talkingradio.blogspot.com/</P>

 

[thebroker]

Re: Get A Clue

Key word: "alleged".

If you'll read my posts carefully, you'll hopefully understand the point I was attempting to articulate.

Is it okay for an FCC licensee to say bad words or show porn? No. This is common sense, because doing so would violate FCC rules.

However, is it okay for a talk jock to say something that some poor misguided souls consider offensive 'hate speech'. Sure. As long as the jock doesn't violate FCC rules, or the rights of another person. And, as I said, nobody is granted freedom from being hated or offended.

I think the biggest point here is that we have to decide as a nation whether or not it's fair to censor talk jocks just because certain groups may feel that the jock is spewing 'hate speech'. And, even if we were to surrender our right to freedom of speech, who determines what is hate speech and what isn't?

Frankly, if I want to hate you, that's my business, and my right. And, if I want to talk about it on the radio, that's my right too, because in doing so I've violated absolutely none of your rights.


I'll give you a quick example of how slippery the slope can become. Earlier this week, I was listening to a local talk station, where a candidate for office opined that she didn't believe we should have a Christmas parade because that may be offensive to non-Christians. If I chose to, I could interpret her words as 'hate speech', interpreting her disdain for a Christmas parade as hate for my religion. Should we censor her?

You see, when we go down this road, radio as we know it has the potential to be ruined. I'd venture to say that every one of us who participate in this board love talk radio of one flavor or another. Just imagine if you woke up tomorrow morning to a radio business where nobody was allowed to take a stand or give an opinion because that opinion may be considered to be hateful to one or more groups. See how insane this can become in a short time?

 

[kaufcom]

Re: Get A Clue

I am glad that you clarified your position. I was responding to the statement made in your post. Your words, not mine.

“I'd love it if you show me in the Constitution where freedom of speech is qualified with the 'burden and onus to speak responsibly'. You won't find it. Freedom of speech, by it's very nature, gives the speaker the right to say anything he wants without being censored by the government.”

Now you have correctly modified your position we can discuss the subject in more detail. We agree that radio talk show personalities cannot use foul language or discuss pornography. I think we also agree that hosts cannot employ speech which slanders public or private individuals.

Now moving on to hate speech. I don't want to use on overused cliche, but it is necessary to do so. Here we have a slippery slope. Your example of hate speech was a weak one. Surely you don't believe that someone who expresses opposition to a Christmas parade is committing "hate speech." I don't think that there are many reasonable people out there who would reach that conclussion.

However, if someone says that all Black, Jewish, Hispanic people should be exterminated, I think that most reasonable people will agree that is hate speech. If a talk show host expressed such an opinion that host would most likely be fired the next day (even if he worked for Salem Communications.)

Now let's look at several recent examples of talk show hosts who have been fired or disciplined for saying things that some people considered to be hate speech.

>Washington radio station WMAL-AM fired talk show host Michael Graham after he refused to soften his description of Islam as "a terrorist organization" on the air. According to WMAL, Graham said "Islam is a terrorist organization" 23 times on his July 25 program. On the same show, he also said repeatedly that "moderate Muslims are those who only want to kill Jews" and that "the problem is not extremism. The problem is Islam."

>Former California Highway Patrol Trooper Paul "Sarge" Fice was fired from his job at KSUB in Cedar City, UT, after making an on-air joke that offended at least one listener. On his buy, sell and swap, Trade-in program, a man called to sell a "Mexican roping saddle." Fice joked that the saddle probably could be used to "rope Mexicans'' coming across the border.

>Fritzy Konstantelos, who appeared on a sports show WSCR-AM, in Bloomington, IL was fired after making a joke about Jewish people observing the Yom Kippor holiday. By his own account, Konstantelos made fun of Jewish people who "go to temple for two hours, atone for their sins and then go right out flim-flamming again."

>Star and Bucwild, the hosts of a popular morning radio show on Power 99 am in Philadelphia were suspended by their station for making an abusive and threatening call to a call centre employee in India. The call was handled by an Indian call centre employee who identified herself as Steena. Midway through the call, Star became abusive, calling Steena a 'bitch' and a 'rat-eater' before threatening to choke her.

>Hot 97, New York, suspended Miss Jones their morning radio personality after she performed a piece that ridiculed victims of the tsunami in South Asia. The piece used racial slurs to describe people swept away in the disaster, made jokes about child slavery and people watching their mothers die. “You can hear God laughing, ’Swim you bitches, swim,”’ was one line in the song.

So it appears that there are limits to what some talk stations will tolerate, when their hosts use hate speech. These peronalities were suspended or fired for the bad behavior. How many others moderate things that they would like to say because they are fearful of being fired?





> Key word: "alleged".
>
> If you'll read my posts carefully, you'll hopefully
> understand the point I was attempting to articulate.
>
> Is it okay for an FCC licensee to say bad words or show
> porn? No. This is common sense, because doing so would
> violate FCC rules.
>
> However, is it okay for a talk jock to say something that
> some poor misguided souls consider offensive 'hate speech'.
> Sure. As long as the jock doesn't violate FCC rules, or the
> rights of another person. And, as I said, nobody is granted
> freedom from being hated or offended.
>
> I think the biggest point here is that we have to decide as
> a nation whether or not it's fair to censor talk jocks just
> because certain groups may feel that the jock is spewing
> 'hate speech'. And, even if we were to surrender our right
> to freedom of speech, who determines what is hate speech and
> what isn't?
>
> Frankly, if I want to hate you, that's my business, and my
> right. And, if I want to talk about it on the radio, that's
> my right too, because in doing so I've violated absolutely
> none of your rights.
>
>
> I'll give you a quick example of how slippery the slope can
> become. Earlier this week, I was listening to a local talk
> station, where a candidate for office opined that she didn't
> believe we should have a Christmas parade because that may
> be offensive to non-Christians. If I chose to, I could
> interpret her words as 'hate speech', interpreting her
> disdain for a Christmas parade as hate for my religion.
> Should we censor her?
>
> You see, when we go down this road, radio as we know it has
> the potential to be ruined. I'd venture to say that every
> one of us who participate in this board love talk radio of
> one flavor or another. Just imagine if you woke up tomorrow
> morning to a radio business where nobody was allowed to take
> a stand or give an opinion because that opinion may be
> considered to be hateful to one or more groups. See how
> insane this can become in a short time?
>
<P ID="signature">______________
http://talkingradio.blogspot.com/</P>

 

[thebroker]

Re: Get A Clue

My example of hate speech was intentionally weak, delivered weakly with the hope that it would seem outrageous that anybody would consider it hate speech. However, when we start to define what's acceptable and what's not, where do we stop? Who draws that line? Frankly, I think we would end up wasting a ton of time attempting to define "hate speech" when it really can't be defined. It's very similar to somebody's tolerance for pain. The threshold is different for every person, so it would be impossible to find a universally accepted level.

I reiterate my point, though, that nobody has any right to not be offended. I personally think most "hate speech" is in bad taste. However, people are entitled to their opinions, whether alleged hate is involved or not. Who's to say that I can't have my say just because my opinions are viewed as "hate"?

We could apply the same principle to other freedoms granted by the first amendment in order to make a valid comparison. What if we were granted freedom of press, so long as whatever we printed didn't offend anyone? And, what if freedom of religion only applied to religions which offended no one. And finally, what if our freedom of assembly applied only when said assembly offended nobody.

Another poster articulated the "No Law" point well. If ever we were to limit free speech, or press, or even religion at all, it would entirely defeat the purpose of having those freedoms to begin with. Liberty limited is liberty lost. We all know how Congress works...they make one law, then another and another. Before you know it, we'd all be calling an 800-number for clearance before we even ventured to form a sentence.


So, how does this all apply to the radio business? I promise I'm getting there...

Perhaps the decision of exactly what is "hate speech", and just how much of that speech will be tolerated lies in the hands of PDs and GMs. Different owners have different thresholds for what is acceptable and what crosses the line. I would love it, though, if managers, owners and executives had a bit more intestinal fortitude. So a talk-jock offends somebody...chances are good that at least a part of the audience will agree. Those who don't agree will stay tuned, too, just because they are fighting mad. I think we could all agree that some of the best radio around revolves around controversy.

If Michael Graham were a talk-jock on my News/Talker, I most certainly wouldn't have fired him. He is entitled to his opinions about Muslims. So long as he were open to views from the other side, and allowed folks with the opposite view to call in, what's the problem? It could make for great radio.

Personally, I have no fear of offending anybody. And if I do offend someone, I honestly don't care, so long as my point is well articulated, based upon reality, educated, and truthful. I have my opinions, and I'm entitled to them. Most talk-jocks are the same way. I believe one of radio's greatest assets is it's ability to tackle the tough issues. And sometimes, those issues involve hate speech. Wouldn't you agree that in the long run, we are better off addressing those issues rather than keeping them bottled up for the sake of a few hurt feelings?

 

[mwebster]

Re: Clues

> It wasn't nice to flame me after I said something favorable
> about you.
>
> See my reply to The Broker's post above to understand my
> position on this so-called freedom of speech issue.
>

Sorry. No offense intended.

Free speech gives protesters the right to protest.
It gives (within certain limits which are the price paid for a broadcast license)station owners the right to select which programming, content and hosts to air.
Hosts are employees and as hosts they enjoy no free speech rights; they are on the air at the sufferance and under the direction of their employers.
Station owners can fire hosts at will (subject to possible personal services or union contracts).

Oliver Wendell Holmes came up with that "fire in a crowed theater" BS to justify prior restraint on speech in a law which made it a criminal offense to criticize the government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918

On last night's Law and Order, I also learned that Holmes also wrote an opinion in favor of forced sterilization of the "feeble minded." I am surprised that so many people are so willing to quote Holmes on a civil liberties issue.

Now if free speech has consequences which result in actual damage to someone, then a civil suit is appropriate. But that happens after someone has spoken and it does not allow some authority to criminalize speech.

If someone does shout fire in a crowded theater: (1) And the person knew no fire existed. (2) And people were hurt or property damaged as a result. Then somebody can sue. The first ammendment does not require one to speak responsible. But civil law may hold one responsible for what they have spoken.

 

[kaufcom]

Re: Clues

Once again I remind you that this is radio board not a "civil liberties" or "constitutional law" board. What Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled gets us nowhere in this discussion. Radio hosts are subject to many limitations that ordinary citizens don't have to adhere to.

They must:

>Adhere to FCC limits on the use of offensive language. E.g. George Carlin's seven words.

>They must avoid being lewd and lascivious

>They can't make slanderous statements about public or private persons

>They can't use speech (generally referred to as "hate speech") which will probably get them fired

The should, but they don't
> Try to tell the truth. And when they are wrong correct themselves.

> Try to fairly cover the other side of an issue that they are promoting.

> Not screen out callers who don't agree with them. Limbaugh rarely takes calls from Liberals while Hannity does not screen out Liberal callers.


> Free speech gives protesters the right to protest.
> It gives (within certain limits which are the price paid for
> a broadcast license)station owners the right to select which
> programming, content and hosts to air.
> Hosts are employees and as hosts they enjoy no free speech
> rights; they are on the air at the sufferance and under the
> direction of their employers.
> Station owners can fire hosts at will (subject to possible
> personal services or union contracts).
>
> Oliver Wendell Holmes came up with that "fire in a crowed
> theater" BS to justify prior restraint on speech in a law
> which made it a criminal offense to criticize the
> government.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918
>
> On last night's Law and Order, I also learned that Holmes
> also wrote an opinion in favor of forced sterilization of
> the "feeble minded." I am surprised that so many people are
> so willing to quote Holmes on a civil liberties issue.
>
> Now if free speech has consequences which result in actual
> damage to someone, then a civil suit is appropriate. But
> that happens after someone has spoken and it does not allow
> some authority to criminalize speech.
>
> If someone does shout fire in a crowded theater: (1) And the
> person knew no fire existed. (2) And people were hurt or
> property damaged as a result. Then somebody can sue. The
> first ammendment does not require one to speak responsible.
> But civil law may hold one responsible for what they have
> spoken.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
http://talkingradio.blogspot.com/</P>